Resources on basic principles of flotation, stability and fluid dynamics? part2
December 9, 2013 at 12:35 am #22451
And it’s not gonna happen from the top, down. The rich are not “here”. They are into bonds, stocks, derivatives, gold, etc. Easy money!
So what is stopping determined people from working together and making billions, like the Traitorous Eight who founded Silicon Valley and whose ideological descendants are now using open-source to fight governments and the NSA? Sure, it’s not that easy, but here we have corporations that didn’t exist a couple of decades ago and that are now pushing for world domination with earned billions. For example, Gordon Moore was one of those eight people from the 50s, and today it’s no problem for him to donate $200 million for the construction of a telescope (in 2007).
In the end money is needed anyway (because it’s hard to achieve autarky). If big-scale seasteading is realized in practice, then, in my opinion, it’s probably gonna be due to someone’s donations or investments, like Thiel’s. And those people will get all the big profit from the new sovereign country. If people want to build massive seasteading vessel, they must become rich first. They may allow poor people on board later, but one cannot afford to buy or build a Boieng airplane if they don’t have money, and one cannot get a credit that big for buying it, if one is a common man. So Thiel has made lots of money and is now toying with the idea of seasteading, and he can do some of his existing business from the new country, if it’s created someday.
If it’s gonna happen it will be from the bottom, up.
Personally, I don’t believe in bottom up… Because smart scientists, productive managers etc are usually able to make money. A bottom up country would most likely not be free enough. I’m not saying people should be judged by how much money they have, but it’s hard to do something big without raising money, due to current world structure.
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.
Isreal was made in that place only because Jews wouldn’t agree to anything else out of religious beliefs. They had other suggestions from countries willing to donate them land from colonies, in Africa, for example. So it’s Jews’ own choice to constantly fight with Arabs. Iran, Iraq, Kuwait — well, I can give you examples of South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore. As usual, you concentrate on the negative examples, completely ignoring positive ones.
Sealand is just an example that seasteading can be done. Sure, it’s illegal, and why wouldn’t it be, if it wasn’t paid for. And I don’t get the point about Rockall invasion, isn’t it a typical conflict between countries about land ownership rights? All your examples of military forces attacking structures are only a proof for my point, that one has to pay and not simply occupy something according to a hole in the law. Laws change all the time, 50 years ago surveillance is considered bad, now it’s being legalized everywhere, and money still rules the world.
And UK kicked people out of Diego Garcia because if was part of BIOT. It seems to me that you just give a bunch of random examples… What does Rockall or Diego Garcia have to do with creating sovereign country? Or what does Vietnam and Korea wars have to do with buying land? For every Yugoslavia there’s USSR, for every America and Australia genocide there’s China and Japan. So what? Stop giving random examples of wars and violence or at least explain your statements. My point isn’t taking ownership of some land against some country’s will, but paying for empty island/desert in a market deal.
I can give random examples too, German submarines attacking civilian ships in WWII, does that mean your floating platform will be attacked by Iranian submarine as an easy target when they start some jihad?
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.
But history tells otherwise, major powers were willing to give Jews the land, and France and Russia sold USA big chunks of land. I don’t understand why do you think that authority over some unneeded land may be worth more to rulers, than a big load of money in times of economic depression.
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.
That’s why one has to politically maneuver. Look at Andorra or Switzerland, very succesful countries in terms of staying neutral. It may be not possible to become strong right from the start, but with time a free country would surely make more money than others. Which means that it’s possible to build defense power with time. Look at Germany, defeat in WWI didn’t stop them from trying political tricks and in 20 years they got enough money and resources to start a new war. Even totally dominated country like Weimar Republic is able to quickly become big force. Being sovereign doesn’t mean that one is untouchable, yet aggression also doesn’t mean total destruction. Many countries were restored after Third Reich and USSR collapsed. Even in case of invasion it’s possible to receive independence back. Being weak doesn’t mean one cannot get strong, Israel started on a small stripe of land and is able to deter numerically superior Arabic forces. You are talking as if only negative things can and will happen. Yeah, shit happens, but for every violent event there’s an independence event and for every war there’s peace. People take risks because they hope everything will go smooth. I’m not saying every attempt to buy sovereign islands/deserts will be succesful, but some will surely be.
Maybe i am wrong, but i expect the safest, for a seastead, is to lay low
Good point, laying low is also a strategy. It’s possible to lay low, grow people and businesses and wait till the mother country is weak enough, or till there’s some chaos in the world and then declare “decolonization”. It should also work. I’m just saying there are different ways for achieving sovereignity. Some people don’t care about external power, they are willing to tolerate it and build community in hope of future decolonization. Some are ready for more hardships as long as they are outright independent. Some like islands, some ships, some platforms… By the way, there is also a possibility to buy a submarine.
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
But what makes you think you can create and manage country? Yes, you can become a kind of a self-sufficient sea hermit with those experiments, but I’m not sure how will it scale from a bunch of one-man amateur platforms to modern urbanized space.December 9, 2013 at 11:16 am #22453
You ask why i picked so many random and negative examples, it’s because i did not need to narrow my focus while finding examples for you, and there aren’t any positive examples, they all involved fighting. You say Israel is there because it chose to be there, it’s still there because countries with massive militaries said it could be there, and the usa propped it up and keeps on propping it up. But this isn’t about Israel.
So you choose the money approach to dominate and acquire land. I cannot help you, i have none, and i do not think anyone with money will give it to buy an island for just anyone to boat over to and live on.
I can work with my hands, i never said i want to run a country, i said i want to be somewhere else away from existing governments (and a great many humans) who are on land.December 9, 2013 at 10:45 pm #22454
To Ancient Man
If I’d have 1$ for how many times we talked during the years here at TSI about “how and when” seasteading is gonna happen, we’d already have a seastead But I’ll bite and try to sum it up.
If a floating structure is built on one fat wallet and then run:
(a) strictly as a business, that ain’t seasteading.
(b) as a business + as a “autonomous oceanic territory” with some sort of “Constitution”, Government, population and the capability to relations with other States, than it is seasteading.
If anybody who wants to seastead is expecting to do so based on the (b) scenario, than they are “Passive seasteaders”.
If a floating structure is built on a partnership of multiple wallets and run as (b), than it was built by “Active seasteaders”.
(c) some people just like the seasteading ideals but don’t know if they’ll ever commit to participate, they are “Neutral seasteaders”.
(d) some people don’t give a shit about seasteading, they are “Non seasteaders”.
Personally, I consider myself an “Active seasteader” and I am working on establishing a small seasteading oriented community first and then building mid-sized (60′-120′ LOA) modular seasteads in the near future.December 9, 2013 at 11:01 pm #22455
This is the engineering forum, care to elaborate on your 60-120ft LOA plan?
I keep thinking of a grid of privately owned 16x16ft or 24x24ft squares on a common subsurface support structure, throw in some common surface for bbq’ing and sports, and praps industrial space, and i don’t know what else peoples would need.December 10, 2013 at 12:32 am #22456December 10, 2013 at 5:05 am #22457
It looks like you are building a combination of floating mooring dock and floating deck for regular houseboats? I have been studying reinforced cement cylinders for grouping under such things, but as a surface floatation scheme it reminds me a lot of the platform i made way back ~1974 using 55 gallon drums. Sure it floated, but it wasn’t stable to walk about on. Pontoon boats are slightly better, the wider the better, but if everyone runs over to one corner they still squat badly. Add some weight, like an outboard, and i have seen pontoon boats with 3ft of the rear deck underwater. I’ve seen older folks falling down as a pontoon boat shifts when they walk from one side to the other, even when tied up at dock on a flat calm lake. This is just another reason i am looking at active submerged floatation.
Did you see:
The usa military was looking at storing submerged cement spheres in fairly deep water. Using fiber reinfored cement they found no leaks or degradation at the end of a year at depth. The Iranian navy was looking at the same scheme, but were more blatant in saying they are for launching prepositioned explosives at ships passing over them.
Something i find in many reports of the cement “crockery” ships of ww2 is they are fragile, a good bump will crack them, running aground sinks them. I remember seeing docks made of beached cement ships in the early 60’s left over from ww2, filled with sand, they were off limits as they were constantly breaking up, even on the lagoon side of the island, and they were not even 20 years old at the time. I am sure there are places for cement in the ocean, but like everything, good places and bad places.December 10, 2013 at 10:28 am #22459
Yes, a sort of a “combo” as you put it. When the 3 pontoons and the houseboat are rafted up, the whole structure is very stable & solid, yet it retains a certain flexibility. You have to keep in mind that the MMK is specifically designed for deployment in shallow, protected water.
There is nothing wrong with ferrocement boats when built right (I owned a Samson 40 in the 90’s). They will outlast anything out there. http://www.ferrocement.org/
Also, the pontoons shown are built in marine plywood and covered in ferrocement for extra strength and in order to reduce future maintenance costs. You have to try REALLY HARD to sink them
A scale model of them was built and tested and it performed excellently.December 10, 2013 at 11:00 am #22460
Looks like a plan, for sheltered waters.
Does the cement hull have the same water condensation on the inside that steel hulls do? I seem to recall a trihull houseboat someone made of plywood, even before it was put into the water he had issues with puddles inside the hull every morning. I am hoping i can use cement thru-and-thru where this is an issue, and have means to avoid the issue where i cannot use cement.
The idea of laminating different materials has a lot going for it. For instance, stucco over a wood frame (boat or house), or aluminum/zinc over steel. Or paint over anything. It’s the delaminating, and water between them, and lack of inspection of the mating surfaces that worries me. For instance, you can put clear polyurethane over steel so you can see any corrosion thru the poly coating before it gets bad, but if i stucco directly on steel, so the steel (ideally) will not see salt water, how will i see the steel going bad? How will you see the plywood going bad?December 10, 2013 at 12:33 pm #22462
More or less towards a bit less than steel. (for a ferrocement only hull).
Now, the MMK’s hull will be 2 layers: 1″ marine plywood inside and 3/4″ laminated ferrocement on the outside, fastened on the plywood and encapsulating the plywood. There will be condensation on the inside layer of plywood, but much less than on a steel hull. To prevent rot on the inside, the plywood will have to be treated, than painted.
You can buy plywood treated with chromated copper arsenate in a water and paraffin emulsion at Home Depot, but won’t last to good in the marine environment. I will use regular marine plywood and than treat it with CPES (Clear Penetrating Epoxy Sealer) and finish it with 2 coats of Elastaff 120, that will virtually eliminate the chances of delamination and rot developing.
http://www.rotdoctor.com/test/polytest/polytest.htmlDecember 10, 2013 at 3:48 pm #22467
I am not trying to second guess you, but have you considered plain cement cylinders, on a vertical axis, with a deck on top? I am thinking you have, and decided not to go that route. What considerations did you have against an all-cement construction? This has been proposed for decades for many at-sea applications, but none using it,and i simply do not know why.
I did a couple back of the envelope calculations, using a 4ft x 10ft steel steel as the outer form (because it’s large and easy to get and makes a decent size, etc), to make a 3ft diameter 4ft tall cement cylinder, will float 2000lbs (not including it’s own weight, which pertains to thickness and mix, which i didn’t want to guess for you) before it goes under. Larger diameters make more sense, but may be difficult to handle. A 30×60 deck with only 20 of these under it should easily carry 10 tons, and there’s no wood involved. I didn’t fully evaluate the situation of using these on the surface, like the deck space you are building, but i hope to try this scheme, in different dimensions, as submerged floatation. I suspect if the cylinders are shallow enough, not over 4ft tall, the stresses may be so low (installed deep under the wave zone) that perhaps they can be only an inch thick (fiber reinforced cement). But i want to get out onto the water asap, and so am putting this experimentation off till then.
Thanks for the link to rotdoctor. I emailed them about the lack of references to painting metals with it.December 10, 2013 at 7:18 pm #22468
Yes, I look at it but never considered it. Too complicated to transfer good and passengers on the top deck, not enough storage space, lack of mobility, to much vertical motion (bobbing up and down), to sum it up, not practical for long term seasteading.
Of course it should be cement, actually steel reinforce concrete for any seastead, in my opinion.
The MMK will be built on a plywood mold just because I am doing it myself and it’s much easier for me to ferro-laminate like that,…December 11, 2013 at 2:06 am #22469
You ask why i picked so many random and negative examples, it’s because i did not need to narrow my focus while finding examples for you
I didn’t need to narrow my focus for positive examples either.
there aren’t any positive examples, they all involved fighting.
USA buying land or Singapore independence are pretty peaceful events. Moreover, Singapore was actually expelled from another country, in direct contradiction to your words about states not willing to give up authority.
You say Israel is there because it chose to be there, it’s still there because countries with massive militaries said it could be there, and the usa propped it up and keeps on propping it up.
Countries with massive militaries didn’t fight for Israel, it fought for itself. Both Arabs and Jews were receiving foreign help, but it’s the Jews who won many times. I think you interpret small countries existence in a wrong way. They don’t always exist because big countries allow them to, they can also exist because they’re neutral ground, or by historical reasons, or because they fight for independence, or because it’s postulated by international law. Sure, there are proxy countries, but not every small country is a proxy one.
i do not think anyone with money will give it to buy an island for just anyone to boat over to and live on.
Again you return to this point, while I already stated that it’s an investment, and I never said the country should be open for any person.
I can work with my hands, i never said i want to run a country, i said i want to be somewhere else away from existing governments (and a great many humans) who are on land.
That’s where our difference stems from, I look at seasteading mainly as an opportunity to create new countries. By the way, why do you prefer seasteading as a method to get away from civilization? Why not live in a boreal forest, in the mountains or in a desert?
I’ll bite and try to sum it up.
Personally, I consider myself an “Active seasteader” and I am working on establishing a small seasteading oriented community first and then building mid-sized (60′-120′ LOA) modular seasteads in the near future.
I agree with your position, and I don’t think I ever said something that is contrary to your summary. So http://www.themanmadekey.org/ is the link to your community?December 11, 2013 at 11:31 am #22470
Yes, http://www.themanmadekey.org/ is the link to the project.
To be more precise, I might have misused the term “community” here… What I envisioned is a partnership of like minded individuals who are willing to invest money, time and effort into making the MMK a reality.
The project will be run as a business, but also as a long term commitment between the partners to stick around the “idealistic side of it” and reinvest part of their profit share to organically grow the MMK into a mid-sized floating eco-habitat (seastead if you wish) located in the Florida Keys.
It’s a work in progress :}December 11, 2013 at 1:21 pm #22471
Ancientman, i think you lack the depth of knowledge to argue your points.
You also claim someone rich would buy you an island as an investment, but you say it’s not open to just anyone, so the very first new government postion there would be immigration control and defense, and yet you say this would not be fighting. An investment by definition will give some return on the money put forth, how will buying an island return any money to the investors? If the island could return money, wouldn’t it be doing that for the current owners, so they would not want to dispose of it? Wouldn’t it be smarter for the current owners to let you use the island and tax you for it?
I said “i never said i want to run a country, i said i want to be somewhere else away from existing governments”, so you said “That’s where our difference stems from, I look at seasteading mainly as an opportunity to create new countries”. That’s fine for you, not for me. I want out from under the thumb of incompetent and corrupt government officials telling me what to do, you want to make new authorities and control structures.
You said “By the way, why do you prefer seasteading as a method to get away from civilization? Why not live in a boreal forest, in the mountains or in a desert?”. It’s because of the combined costs of living on land: the cost of the land, the cost of government regulations, the certainty that no matter where you are in a country there will be impositions on you, and finally that on land you cannot simply lift anchor and leave the new neighbors. In a marina, if someone boats in and sets up a meth lab, turns dogs loose on everyone, fires guns night and day, gets drunk every night and has yelling matches, i can leave immediately, with everything i own, with very little cost to me. The marina may stay in business and keep making money, but not from me. You just cannot do that on land, for no matter where you are on land, you still must buy the land, pay the taxes, and put up with the same BS. As much as Diamond Shoals or Frying Pan are isolated (think of the Atlantic as a huge moat), they are fixed locations, there is nothing you can do about some redneck coming out on weekends and shooting your windows out (it’s been done), even while you are inside making breakfast. And maybe you have not experienced it, but i own land and there’s been rednecks who put bullets into my home (and other homes around here), and there’s nothing i can do about it, even as i pay the taxes to fund the “justice” here. It’s not just here, i have lived in many states in conus, and i have been, and always will be, restricted to the lower caste areas due to my income. The basic rules are: you put up with the humans or you live where they don’t, once a gov gains authority it will never relinquish it, and authority will always be enforced at the king’s whim no matter how wrong it is.
My interactions with humans usually end badly, much like this conversation started about engineering and now is about you deriding my choice of going to sea and debating world history. I’m done.December 13, 2013 at 10:59 am #22483
What I envisioned is a partnership of like minded individuals who are willing to invest money, time and effort into making the MMK a reality.
It’s a work in progress
Sounds nice, I’ll keep an eye on it and check for news!
You also claim someone rich would buy you an island as an investment, but you say it’s not open to just anyone, so the very first new government postion there would be immigration control and defense, and yet you say this would not be fighting.
Security and fighting are different things. There are security guys in every corporation, yet you can’t call it fighting.
once a gov gains authority it will never relinquish it
How is that? Singapore was expelled from a country. Government guys voted for it. Or consider USSR, mostly peacefully disbanded. Roman Empire, divided in two. And so on…
An investment by definition will give some return on the money put forth, how will buying an island return any money to the investors? If the island could return money, wouldn’t it be doing that for the current owners, so they would not want to dispose of it? Wouldn’t it be smarter for the current owners to let you use the island and tax you for it?
It’s often not the land itself that brings prosperity, it’s the ruling class of a country. Here’s a famous joke:
“What would happen if a socialist republic were established in the middle of the Sahara desert?
Within three years, it would have to import sand”.
Of course, it would be smarter for current owners to tax the island, except there’s nothing to tax. And unless they sell it, they won’t receive any money.
I want out from under the thumb of incompetent and corrupt government officials telling me what to do, you want to make new authorities and control structures.
But you get new hazards. Lack of basic security, no division of labour etc… More freedom in some area doesn’t automatically equal more total freedom. For example, more of your time will be spent trying to survive, so now your time isn’t free. You can’t buy anything in the middle of the ocean, so you have less freedom in shopping and in choosing what to do, because you will be building things that you can’t buy.
In my view, when everyone can make a country, there’s more freedom created: you don’t like current authority, you create a new one. So the freedom is in choosing authority, sure, you can choose self-management, it’s a legal choice, but for me seasteading is creating the diversity of state management, not escaping civilization. I’m not saying one thing is better than the other, merely pinpointing the differences between us.
It’s because of the combined costs of living on land
no matter where you are in a country there will be impositions on you, and finally that on land you cannot simply lift anchor and leave the new neighbors
You just cannot do that on land, for no matter where you are on land, you still must buy the land, pay the taxes, and put up with the same BS.
There is plenty of empty space on land, there won’t be anyone in tens of miles around, and I seriously doubt government would try to enforce something on you, if you make a small house in the middle of nowhere without permission. As long as you are living by yourself and not causing substantial harm, there’s a lot of chance you will be left alone. Even in cities there is a similar phenomenon, squatting.
As much as Diamond Shoals or Frying Pan are isolated
Why not choose some lesser known location? Famous places attract people.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Posted on at