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




Resources on basic principles of flotation, stability and fluid dynamics? part2

Home Forums Research Engineering Resources on basic principles of flotation, stability and fluid dynamics? part2

This topic contains 38 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of spark spark 9 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 39 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #22434
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    I cannot reply to chdeist’s post of this topic name, the wikipedia link is all over the html and clicking aywhere on the page goes to wikipedia.

    But my comment on the study of floating boat-like things in the ocean is like the pictures on http://floatliving.com/vessels.html , why would anyone want to put themselves at the mercy of waves? There’s pictures online and videos showing waves boarding above the hull of commercial cruise ships, oil tankers, and every ship and boat smaller than them. There’s pics of wave-damaged aircraft carriers online too, here’s two: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/usa/cv20-2.jpg http://www.its.caltech.edu/~drmiles/cv-12_typhoon_damage_june45.html and a discussion page of them: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=171974

    So why would you build an unstable bathtub to keep water out, and then try to live in it? You know it is going to heave, you know it will roll, you know it’s going to interact with every wave that comes it’s way, and in 25 years it will be so metal fatigued that you will be unable to get insurance on it. Plus you must be careful about how much weight you put in it, and where you put that weight, including the possibility the weight is mobile.

    A boat is a transportation device, it makes a poor ocean home. And 20 ft waves are very common, even away from a hurricane hit, why would you place your home anywhere a wave can reach it??

    #22437
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    There’s pics of wave-damaged aircraft carriers

    The pictures you show are dated 1945, I think. I’d bet material science, fluid mechanics, seacraft engineering and other different fields of science have had quite a lot of progress. 70 years have gone by, mankind surely can build better structures with better understanding of the ocean. Moreover, as I understand, those carriers were damaged in a typhoon, not a rogue wave.

    why would anyone want to put themselves at the mercy of waves?
    So why would you build an unstable bathtub to keep water out, and then try to live in it? You know it is going to heave, you know it will roll, you know it’s going to interact with every wave that comes it’s way
    And 20 ft waves are very common, even away from a hurricane hit, why would you place your home anywhere a wave can reach it??

    The reason for building ships and floating cities for permanent living is that it’s possible to be free from other jurisdictions according to law. That’s very important to certain people. Though my personal opinion is that it may be better or cheaper to try and buy some island/desert etc and sovereign rights for it, rather than building “bathtubes”. But sea cities are definitely an option, every alternative must be tried in order to pave way for country creation process standartization.
    Besides, the plan is to try and live near land at first.

    in 25 years it will be so metal fatigued that you will be unable to get insurance on it.
    A boat is a transportation device, it makes a poor ocean home.

    But cruise ships do that, consider Pacific Princess. In service from 1971 till 2013, that’s more than 40 years.

    Plus you must be careful about how much weight you put in it, and where you put that weight, including the possibility the weight is mobile.

    That’s what engineers are for, it’s their job to provide maximum safety and consider all the caveats.

    #22438
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    I was not distinguishing what drove the water aboard the ships, or even what sort of ship was temporarily or partially under how much water. It’s not just ww2 aircraft carriers, a couple of years ago three Disney cruise ships got water aboard. There’s many short videos on the internet of various ships in heavy seas, taking on water from all sides, and at least one goes to the bottom every year because it is unintentionally carrying ocean water. This goes for fishing/crabbing boats, cruise ships, tankers, ferries, etc., and then there’s those that run aground.

    I was also not debating why one would want to get away from an oppressive government or culture. I plan on getting out of the usa as soon as i can.

    The ships that last beyond 25 years do so by rebuilding portions, repairing, and staying away from rough waters. They have the money to carry out drydocking and fuel for outrunning storms. I saw a repair estimate a few years back for replacing shaft seals and bearings of a small ship in the neighborhood of $million, not including the required drydocking for inspection every 5 to 10 years. Your car engine may last 150,000 miles, but it’s not working nearly as hard as an engine in a ship, and that many miles on land is only 2,500 hours, or 100 days running 24 hours a day, so you will be rebuilding or replacing engines every year, at least, in a busy hurricane/typhoon season. Plus the fuel cost.

    I am not even debating using tiny spots of land, or submerged “land” in the form of seamounts as a place to go, there’s many island nations who might like to be rescued from rising ocean levels or increasingly violent storms. I’ve been on the ocean in a small boat, and i have lived on an isolated island atoll.

    All that said, i am not going to stay on a boat in the ocean, rolling 45 degrees every minute, getting rolled completely a couple times each night, and having a voracious fuel and repair bill. But if i had the money and knew about the auction of Diamond Shoals, i’d have bid on it too.

    It’s the WAVES i am talking about, the constant motion, the notion that the blue water can board the boat, that chdiest is researching the use of a transportation device as living space. To me, living on a BOAT makes as much sense as living on a helicopter parked somewhere up in the sky. I mean, good grief, the “texas towers” were put in place 40 years ago, and the oil industry isn’t floating everything in “conventional” boats or ships any more, isn’t it past time that the seasteaders looked beyond *boats* as homes?

    #22439
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    I was not distinguishing what drove the water aboard the ships, or even what sort of ship was temporarily or partially under how much water. It’s not just ww2 aircraft carriers, a couple of years ago three Disney cruise ships got water aboard. There’s many short videos on the internet of various ships in heavy seas, taking on water from all sides, and at least one goes to the bottom every year because it is unintentionally carrying ocean water.

    Why not distinguish between different causes of accidents? It’s not right to mix everything in one pile. To overcome problems, first a particular problem must be idenitified. Also, media has a tendency to talk about bad cases, so for every one Disney cruise there may be x10 more ships that do not experience significant troubles during their exploitation. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be profitable to transport cargo by sea. Besides, according to project the city may very well be modular, meaning old modules can be replaced when needed. Also, ships are constructed according to needs. They are not protected fully because the owners are willing to take some risk. For a permanently habitated floating city it should be possible to create more secure structure. It would be more expensive, of course, but also there could be made some cost cuts, if we agree that some ship features are not needed for a city.
    There’s also this study:
    http://seasteading.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Parametric-Analysis-of-Candidate-Configurations-for-Early-Seasteads_GPetrie.pdf

    The ships that last beyond 25 years do so by rebuilding portions, repairing, and staying away from rough waters. They have the money to carry out drydocking and fuel for outrunning storms. I saw a repair estimate a few years back for replacing shaft seals and bearings of a small ship in the neighborhood of $million, not including the required drydocking for inspection every 5 to 10 years. Your car engine may last 150,000 miles, but it’s not working nearly as hard as an engine in a ship, and that many miles on land is only 2,500 hours, or 100 days running 24 hours a day, so you will be rebuilding or replacing engines every year, at least, in a busy hurricane/typhoon season. Plus the fuel cost.

    So is the plan of seasteading to be modular, to be easy to repair and to start close to the land. Everything gotta start somewhere, progress is a matter of time, experience, scientists and money. No one says that from day 1 the floating city will have fully autonomous economy and highest possible protection.
    Then there’s a plan for the project to make money and not just spend it. The founders want for seasteading to be economically viable. If it’s viable, then it would be able to afford repair costs. The ship’s engine needs to constantly do work, for city it’s not needed, especially if it’s moored. The city also doesn’t need to go all the time as fast as the ship. There are differences between sailing and seasteading, and the costs estimates should also be different. And as to the fuel, there are different possibilities, e.g. solar or wave energy, nothing is fixed yet.

    I am not even debating using tiny spots of land, or submerged “land” in the form of seamounts as a place to go, there’s many island nations who might like to be rescued from rising ocean levels or increasingly violent storms. I’ve been on the ocean in a small boat, and i have lived on an isolated island atoll.

    Who says about tiny, look how USA got its territory, it bought both Alaska and Lousiana, and quite cheaply. Times have changed, but it’s totally doable. Of course, the land will be much smaller, but it’s realistic, think about Israel or Singapore. I think you are concentrating on the negative and ignoring all the positive aspects. Sure, there are island nations who need rescue, but there are also island nations who do not need it. Nothing is 100% in this world, there are good and bad examples for every idea, you want seasteading proof — there’s Principality of Sealand, you want proofs of making sovereign island entities, here they are: Ancient Greek city-states, Venice Republic, Empire of Japan, Singapore, Taiwan.

    All that said, i am not going to stay on a boat in the ocean, rolling 45 degrees every minute, getting rolled completely a couple times each night, and having a voracious fuel and repair bill.

    That bill may very well be compensated by the money you will be able to make at such a unique place. Cost of living in US is really high compared to third world, yes most Americans aren’t in need, because they have salary that offsets those costs.

    It’s the WAVES i am talking about, the constant motion, the notion that the blue water can board the boat, that chdiest is researching the use of a transportation device as living space. To me, living on a BOAT makes as much sense as living on a helicopter parked somewhere up in the sky.

    Most people grow accustomed to waves pretty fast. Humans are really adaptable beings. You think of living on a ship as a hole in your wallet, but it’s not like that, you can get benefits too, if the life is organized correctly.

    good grief, the “texas towers” were put in place 40 years ago, and the oil industry isn’t floating everything in “conventional” boats or ships any more, isn’t it past time that the seasteaders looked beyond *boats* as homes?

    Boats are being considered by some as a first stage. After that, new innovative machinery may be constructed. Think of ships as a proof-of-concept. It’s good to start with specialised equipment, but if we don’t have anything better, let’s try ships and accomodate them to our needs. Personally, I’m actually for land buying, but I’m not against things like ships or offshore platforms. It’s all good as long as it’s secure, legal and more free than the currently existing countries. I think The Seasteading Institute is like a mother organization to all those who want to create new countries, be it islands, ships or platforms. They’re all connected to the sea and it’s a job of The Seasteading Institute to lobby for the universal right to create countries. So you are for platforms (texas towers), I’m for islands/deserts, others are for ships and there’s no need for us to quarrel, our goal is common but the ways of achieving it are different.

    #22440
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    Kat, nobody put a gun to you head and said “seastead or else”, dude. If you don’t like boats, waves, etc, go and do something else, don’t waste your time here…
    This is for the people who WANT to seastead man.

    #22441
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Wow, Oceanopolis, way to make a ton of bad assumptions!

    #22442
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    We have to distinguish between assumptions and conclusions. You said:”…i am not going to stay on a boat in the ocean, rolling 45 degrees every minute, getting rolled completely a couple times each night, and having a voracious fuel and repair bill. But if i had the money and knew about the auction of Diamond Shoals, i’d have bid on it too.
    It’s the WAVES i am talking about, the constant motion, the notion that the blue water can board the boat, that chdiest is researching the use of a transportation device as living space. To me, living on a BOAT makes as much sense as living on a helicopter parked somewhere up in the sky. I mean, good grief, the “texas towers” were put in place 40 years ago, and the oil industry isn’t floating everything in “conventional” boats or ships any more, isn’t it past time that the seasteaders looked beyond *boats* as homes?”

    So, to me, it is obvious that you don’t want to seastead on a floating structure, therefore the comment. Please don’t take my comment personally, I am just a straight shooter :)

    But I think we should make a distinction between a boat and a seastead. If designed right and also built strong in ferrocement (actually structurally reinforced concrete), a seastead can last forever and will be comfortable enough to live on it.
    http://www.seasteading.org/forum-list/topic/waveland-modular-mobile-offshore-base/

    I do have to agree that a shoal or an uninhabited island would be cheaper and better (comfort wise). (clipperton Island is on top of my list). But IF we consider the political ramifications,…I’d rather do a floating structure. YMOA

    #22443
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    I do not consider a tower to be a boat. Especially one that is floating on submerged float chambers 100 to 200 feet below the surface. Picture a tension leg style of platform, with as little waterline area as possible, as wide a base as possible, and no contact with the ocean floor. The floatation chambers below can be cement, there’s several ways to protect the minimal amount of steel involved. I have tried experimenting with table salt and water, i cannot get the steel to rust, not in the last 6 months. I have had steel outside in periodic fresh water dunking for 4 years, unrusted, altho in the shade. I have arranged to get 5 gallons of ocean water sent to me.

    Diamond Shoals would have made a nice place to do research and assembly, staging, and a place for people to get their feet wet. It’s out of sight of land, it’s deeper water than a land-based marina, and relatively safe to be on. I would not want to spend the rest of my life there. It would have been a stepping stone, it would be a place to pick up mail and supplies without going all the way to land. It would be like a permanent anchorage with state and federal approval to be out there.

    #22444
    Avatar of Ancient Man
    Ancient Man
    Member

    I do have to agree that a shoal or an uninhabited island would be cheaper and better (comfort wise). (clipperton Island is on top of my list). But IF we consider the political ramifications,…I’d rather do a floating structure.

    Why not buy island/desert with sovereign rights? Why is everyone so convinced countries wouldn’t sell sovereign right to some unneeded land? Money does wonders. And history says it’s totally possible. One can consider it an investment whereupon one buys a place to govern, to live in, to make business their own way, to collect taxes etc. It’s like an investment into a corporation. For me countries differ from corporations only in scale. So one can make a fund, collect investments/donations from likeminded people and find some existing country that’s willing to sell sovereign right to a stripe of land. Profit comes in case of country success.
    World has allowed much worse countries to form compared to some libertarian-wannabe resort, like USSR, which was formed from ashes and declared ideological war on the West, yet after a little intervention in civil war Western forces retreated and allowed bolsheviks to make country. Yes, invasion has happened, but we have to remember World War was going on and White forces asked Allies to intervene against the Reds. So what makes many think major powers wouldn’t allow small-scale liberal state to exist, especially if it is created peacefully and legally and on the land that was bought by money earned in a capitalist economy? Communist dictators, barbarians, primitive jungle tribes and Muslim kings are allowed to rule, yet many think that sovereign libertarian country can’t be formed by way of buying land? I stand firmly against such view because history teaches otherwise. I’m not against ships or floating platforms (I strongly support them), but my opinion is that creating island/desert federation with highly mobile fleet is much more prospective.

    #22445
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    LOL. Of course it is possible :) Anything is possible. But you need determined, serious people to do it.
    And it’s not gonna happen from the top, down. Why? Because that would have been the easiest way out and it didn’t happen,…Most of he rich don’t care ’bout a “stinking” floating island or idealistic future model societies, yet. (well,..other than Thiel) The rich are not “here”. They are into bonds, stocks, derivatives, gold, etc. Easy money!
    If it’s gonna happen it will be from the bottom, up. But that’s the hard way. Forget ’bout the middle class. They are “busy” becoming the upper class. So, all you have it’s the poor as the most likely candidate, because they have nothing to loose and anything would be better than their actual condition. But they don’t have money :)
    Where do we go from here?

    #22446
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Israel is a “made country” after WW2, and no one in the area is happy about that. Ditto Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. And there’s Liberia. There’s the Rockall invasion, Sealand (which UK has not recognised but simply won’t waste money making a fuss over), the attempt in the Pacific to make an island from a shoal which got squashed by military from 100′s of miles away, the tower off Italy which was blown up by the military, the attempt to cement two ships together on a shoal in the Carribean, the failed attempt with concrete ship off California (which the usa said they weren’t going to allow anyhow), and the various untried and previously legal methods of making islands (ambiguous language which said if you upended a 100ft pipe full of dirt in 80ft of water, and planted grass in the end, it was an island). There was the attempt to “grow” rock on shoals south of India, which every nation in the area said wasn’t permitted. Speaking of that general area, the UK kicked people off Diego Garcia so the usa could have a military base there, and the natives still say the UK had no right to call it their island in the first place, and that’s not the only island that’s happened to. And there’s the Bosnia event. And the North and South Vietnams and Koreas. And the Bosnia squirmish. Nowhere did the native americans appreciate the europeans grabbing land to form the usa or any other country. Ditto the native austrailians, etc etc.. Heck, China still claims Hong Kong, and in case you missed it, there’s currently military buildup going on over some itty bitty islands and submerged rocks involvng the Phillipines, Japan, China, etc etc.. And any land you settle today may be claimed retroactively by someone else with a bigger military.
    Actual land my be ideal place for non-aquatic species, like humans, to live, but i belive no one will willingly allow you to displace their authority over that land. I believe the best you will do is to be allowed to peacefully co-exist with an existing island nation and provide them some benefit (in their terms, not yours), and know they can nationalise all your physical infrastructure at any time and kick you out. This happens repeatedly to oil companies, which occasionally lose $Billions simply because the land owner says so. Your second best option would be to assume control of an island nation, peacefully, that is watching all of it’s land go underwater, but i expect you and your kids will die of old age before that happens.
    Even a floating structure out in international waters must, by various laws, have a country of title and registration, and even then will be subject to the whims of any other country’s military. I will bet anything that as a usa citizen, if i flag a seastead in Ghana (or anywhere else), the usa military won’t pause if they want to board my seastead, and even sink it if they want to. The only deterrent, and a very minor one, will be fear of retaliation by the flag country. Retaliation which won’t happen.
    Maybe i am wrong, but i expect the safest, for a seastead, is to lay low in the EEZ of the owner’s country and make absolutely no waves, at least that way there is less conflict concerning other countries. The second best is to drift into international waters and take your chances, where history has shown when a major military power accidently runs into you (Ehime Maru, Bugaled Breizh, Lorrain Bretagne, etc) with one of their military boats, you simply sink and are forgotten. Of course, this may be no different than where you currently are on land, if your government decides to make you disappear.

    #22447
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    As I said, if you perceive it as impossible, why bother?

    #22448
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    I don’t see where i said seasteading is impossible.

    #22449
    Avatar of
    Anonymous

    Look, i am only pointing out there’s a better way than a *boat* to seastead with.
    If you are looking for a meal, in a field, with a gun, and a deer and a bear both appear, most people would not shoot the bear, because the deer is better eating.
    Most people would agree that shooting the deer does not involve placing your hand over the end of the gun where the bullet exits as you pull the trigger, even tho you might still get a deer steak for dinner.
    Most people might also agree that it’s possible but unlikely you can shoot straight up and have the bullet fall down onto the deer to kill it.
    There’s also a right and wrong way to fix fugu, make humanure, use a nailgun, or drive a train around a curve rated for 35mph. There’s also some wrong ways to build a house on a barrier island.
    I am only saying a *boat* won’t make an acceptable living space (for me), and the other billions of humans will fight you for any land on earth that you want to settle on and rule. There are alternatives. Things besides *boats* will float (the one acre concrete marina on Lake Powell comes to mind, but it is not on the ocean, where it would surely break up in heavy seas, HOWEVER there are ways to make floating concrete structures survive the ocean). If you want to be king of your place on a south Pacific island, perhaps you need to register as a long term visitor in several adjacent island nations, and periodically move your place between them. There’s places out there with isolated shoals way out of sight of land, which i’d bet you could get paid permission to “visit” on for years with a 20ft jackup rig, but never own.
    There’s usually alternatives to what’s unacceptable. The more i work out the various downsides to seasteading, the better it looks. I cannot afford to buy an island, a nuclear powered anything, an acre of barge, a cruise ship, or much of anything else proposed (and never realised) on this forum, but i can (and have) built easily portable pontoons that will float 200lbs per foot for real cheap, i can and have researched steel and concrete durability in ocean water, i can build on research done by others, and i can build things with my hands.
    Feel free to keep on pounding on me, Oceanopolis, but i won’t live on a boat, and you don’t need to visit my seastead.

    #22450
    Avatar of OCEANOPOLIS
    OCEANOPOLIS
    Participant

    I hear you.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 39 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate