Eelco | There is no way a structure that is even remotely FLIP-like will be moved out of the way of storms, unless it actually flips over. And unless we find a location with virtually non-existent currents, the fuel bill for mere station keeping will be prohibitive. Deep-sea anchorage is fairly common. So are diesel generators, to run the motors, formely used as genreators, while anchored [/quote] Sure, anchoring is an option wrt station keeping; though id question the economics for a structure the size of spar. The spar concept doesnt combine very well with concrete, unfortunately. Due to its lower strength to weight ratio, it is hard to get enough buoyancy out of the per definition narrow waterline section. Perhaps with high strength low weight concrete it could work, but I dont know enough about that subject to be sure. But regular concrete need not apply, that much I do know. A strictly hollow spar WOULD have problems. Setting decks within the structure adds the reinforcement necessary. Place one at the water-line, space the others above and below that, all with sealable hatchways, to reduce the risk of a flooded compartment sinking the whole project. In addittion, using aluminum sacrificial anodes protects against corrosion of the inter-connected steel reinforcement. Ignoring basic structural design parameters, invalidates any paper, pressuming to know all, and be the end-all, of the matter. Steel isn’t the budget-approach to building a durable water craft. As with any material, there are plusses and minusses. Any such design must use the strengths of the material and minimize the weaknesses. Steel, by using shapes to displace water, floats. There are concretes that, reguardless of shape, float, because of trapped air. There’s the positive buoyancy floatation stuff, to be sure it stays afloat. Not even “High-Tech,” at that. I do not pretend to know all, but it is presumptive to say “This can not be done.” Given the resources, anything can be developed into a prototype. Build one prototype and see how well it works, determine the best ways to improve it before building the next one. It was said we could not go to the Moon. With proper designs and planning… Been there, done that. Concrete ships have survived mines, fires and missile attacks. It’s not a matter of “Won’t work.” It DOES work. “How do we apply this knowledge?” is the question proposed… The first ferro-cement boat ever made is still capable of floating, based on displacement, with no regard for up-keep, on the builders’ part. Where is the first wooden boat? The first steel boat? Ferro-cement has issues, which are known, and can be properly designed around. Later, J.L..F. If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef BTW, You can’t prove a negative. Saying it can’t work/it won’t work, hasn’t stopped progress. [/quote] Not sure what you are trying to say. Proving that a certain structure is impossible given the properties of standard concrete is very well possible. Making concrete float isnt the problem, but for a spar, its not just balancing forces, balancing moments is also a complicating matter. That said, its not literally impossible to build a concrete spar, but the ratio of displacement to topside tonnage really balloons as strength to weight goes down, which makes mobility properties even worse than for a steel spar, which are already pretty worrysome, if not prohibitive. |
J.L.-Frusha | So, Your are saying, given proper attention to design, there is no way a spar-like structure, of ferro-cement, will work, on the basis of your admission that you are not an engineer, nor a trained ferro-cement architect. What I’m saying is, look at the evidence, ask an expert that has experience in the field, before you go declaring ferro-cement dead. Have you noticed that ferro-cement has been used, in sea-fairing structures that withstand the very forces you say it cannot do? Wake-up and smell the burning coffee!. I have said, it needs examination by an expert and that decalarations and proclamations don’t make something you don’t know, impossible. You admit that you don’t have the prerequisit expertise, but you ignore the facts. I admit that I don’t have the expertise to design one, but that ferro-cement has already been tested to 3500 ft. depths by the Navy. Look at the thread on laminated concrete. You’ll find it. Can ferro-cement structures work? Yes. Does declaration that doing so is impossible make it impossible? No. Wood, normally floats, yet the first steam-powered submarine was also the first engine-powered submarine. it even used a chemical reaction that produced oxygen, as it made the very heat it needed to produce the steam. Any properly designed structure, will do what it is designed to do, based on the strengths and limitations of the material. Call in an expert in Naval ferro-cement architecture and ask how to do it, don’t just state that the world is flat, until you have facts to back your statement and that those facts are totally indisputable, forever and ever, Amen. Now, I’ll get off the soap-box for a bit and say this… It may require a redesign to meet the above requirements(Spar/FLIP/SeaOrbiter), but floating concrete structures are here to stay. Later, J.L..F. If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef |
tusavision | I don’t see the merits of trying to go oil rig with this concept. It’s expensive beyond belief, and is completely out of budget. It’s a matter of questioning assumptions, and the one I see being incredibly expensive here is that it is particularly difficult to make a watertight buoy with a snorkel. Why not make a watertight acrylic hampsterball with a variable buoyance tank? Start small and build up, most people would rather live without a refrigerator, oven, and rent vs. saving up their lunch money for 200 years to buy a solar powered yaht on stilts. Let’s build this out of expanding foam and alluminum tube and go from there. http://www.cyberangler.com/articles/brown/stick-float-stopper-lrg.jpg |
tusavision | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sensitized_solar_cell http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/2979493093_bb35e50723.jpg?v=0 Burning man solar flower(NSFW->panels power dildos) Imagine a concrete igloo on the ocean floor just off the coast ~33ft underwater. You can feed the thing air with snorkels and just pearl dive your way home after going grocery shopping. |
tusavision | Take Flip, and add power, or the SeaOrbiter and create the Family Seastead I keep describing. As long as you can move it, you can avoid the major storms. Undo these, rehook those differently and tow it away from harm. There is no way a structure that is even remotely FLIP-like will be moved out of the way of storms, unless it actually flips over. And unless we find a location with virtually non-existent currents, the fuel bill for mere station keeping will be prohibitive. [/quote] If it’s submersible that’s not a problem. How many scuba tanks does it take for a family of 12 to wait out a storm? How long of a dry snorkel does it take to feed an underwater egg air? Any reason a flooded snorkel can’t be drained inside the egg to keep this length to a minimum? |
J.L.-Frusha | For one thing, that much foam, scaled to a size suitable for human habitation, would be cost prohibitive. Otherwise, you’re talking about a variation on the ‘floating-spar.’ As for the hamster-ball. It’ll get blown all over the place. Too much wind resistance/frontal area. Back to Ferrocement… http://www.cd3wd.com/cd3wd_40/cd3wd/CONSTRUC/B30FEE/EN/B712_5.HTM An old document, but very well stated. IF my life depended on a ferrocement structure, could I build it in such a way as to minimize the hazard of sinking? Most certainly. Could I guard against MOST puntures? Most certainly. Could I meet the basic recommendations of this set of basic requirements? Most certainly. Would I trust such a design to support my family safely? Most certainly, as long as it meets the design requirements and structural integrity requirements… As with any structure, a curved shape is more structurally sound than a flat plane. A round, floating spar, redisributes stress over more area. an internal structure, at surface level, aids the structural integrity, as do any other internal ribs… Sounds like advanced wing design, when you put it that way… Wait! We’re talking structures, in relation to fluid dynamics! How ’bout them apples? Later, J.L..F. If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef |
J.L.-Frusha | Take Flip, and add power, or the SeaOrbiter and create the Family Seastead I keep describing. As long as you can move it, you can avoid the major storms. Undo these, rehook those differently and tow it away from harm. There is no way a structure that is even remotely FLIP-like will be moved out of the way of storms, unless it actually flips over. And unless we find a location with virtually non-existent currents, the fuel bill for mere station keeping will be prohibitive. [/quote] If it’s submersible that’s not a problem. How many scuba tanks does it take for a family of 12 to wait out a storm? How long of a dry snorkel does it take to feed an underwater egg air? Any reason a flooded snorkel can’t be drained inside the egg to keep this length to a minimum? [/quote] http://www.seaorbiter.com/accueil It’s designed, primarily to float with the current, BUT it also is designed with power to move out of the way of the storms. Going under-water does not require large amounts of added air capacity, in an otherwise large vehicle. It does require CO2 scrubbing and some air replacement. In fifty foot wave, you have to be at least 100 feet down, to minimize the effects of the storm, requiring extra weight, in the form of added structure, which costs more to build and make waterproof, than adding electric motors and a couple of small generators, along with fuel storage, to move out of the way of the very same storm. Look at submarine designs, historic and current… Later, J.L..F. If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef |
tusavision | For one thing, that much foam, scaled to a size suitable for human habitation, would be cost prohibitive. Otherwise, you’re talking aboutnor variation on the ‘floating-spar.’ As for the hamster-ball. It’ll get blown all over the place. Too much wind resistance/frontal area. Submerge the ball during bad winds and sail back where you want to go when the winds are favorable. Or just use an anchor. http://www.sprayfoam.com/spps/ahpg.cfm?spgid=102 I think we’re on the same page here: let’s get people on the water for the cost of a used car and then start dreaming big with fat wallets. Maybe I’m naive, but some of the problems driving expensive and elaborate solutions seem to be easier to solve by mitigating them at their source. I’m not afraid of waves because I want to build a submersible house boat out of a large propane tank. I just saved myself $4 million vs. trying to keep my lawn chairs from getting wet. Agriculture might as well be a seperate structure from the house so that the problems can be dealt with one at a time vs. skyrocketing costs. IE: Screw vegetables: drift nets and tunafish. |
tusavision | Take Flip, and add power, or the SeaOrbiter and create the Family Seastead I keep describing. As long as you can move it, you can avoid the major storms. Undo these, rehook those differently and tow it away from harm. There is no way a structure that is even remotely FLIP-like will be moved out of the way of storms, unless it actually flips over. And unless we find a location with virtually non-existent currents, the fuel bill for mere station keeping will be prohibitive. [/quote] If it’s submersible that’s not a problem. How many scuba tanks does it take for a family of 12 to wait out a storm? How long of a dry snorkel does it take to feed an underwater egg air? Any reason a flooded snorkel can’t be drained inside the egg to keep this length to a minimum? [/quote] http://www.seaorbiter.com/accueil It’s designed, primarily to float with the current, BUT it also is designed with power to move out of the way of the storms. Going under-water does not require large amounts of added air capacity, in an otherwise large vehicle. It does require CO2 scrubbing and some air replacement. In fifty foot wave, you have to be at least 100 feet down, to minimize the effects of the storm, requiring extra weight, in the form of added structure, which costs more to build and make waterproof, than adding electric motors and a couple of small generators, along with fuel storage, to move out of the way of the very same storm. Look at submarine designs, historic and current… Later, J.L..F. If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef [/quote] That 100 foot figure makes sense. My reaction is a pressurized panic room but perhaps that’s inexperience about the cost contrast vs. going in to boat mode. It’s worth noting that the house can be fully submerged with equilized pressure in the dry portions minimizing building costs, and the humans can take more fuel economic precautions to deal with surving the storm. That makes it a simple matter of using hydraulic pumps to purge ballast tanks on a robotic AUV house with a dry box for furnature vs. a pressure housing for humans which is expensive. I like the seaorbiter btw. I think my priorities on cost are just different relative to some features. Maybe I should stick to the personal submarine forum as that’s more in line with my objectives vs. raining on the parade of less submersible goals. |
Eelco | Frusha: As a matter of fact, I am an engineer; one that has spent a few months working fulltime on these exact issues. You are not going to move a spar out of the way of a storm, and you are not going to make it more economical by building it out of standard concrete. And I am not going to write a ten-page analysis here as to why; youll have to take my word for it for now. |
wesley_Bruce | Something like this with a retractable out rigger and deployable fairweather pontoon would work. The wave goes over it. Or it goes through the wave. I’d add a high bow and stern to cut the waves. This has no deck or open hatch to catch the water. A simple pellum with blige pump seperates air and water like a jet skii.  Rescue boat.
Seat belts and padding would help. Remote USV units, smaller robot boats 2 km away, to tell it the wave state nearby would help. That way you know the big ones coming and have time to prepare. On calm seas the retracting or detachable pontoon out rigger makes this a wide long trimaran. Why build a giant when several small hulls and some robotics can give you the same volume and deck. It breaks and and scatters only to reform when the rouge wave/ storm waves pass. In the doldrums and the pacific equitorial waters the dangrous waves would only be 1 to 3 days in the year with warning. The sea would be flat or low swell for 8-10 months of the year. I remember we had maps somewhere of mean wave hights. It showed areas where the nunbers were under two metres with low frequency. We need life boats on our sea stead, someone will make that law anyway, so the sea stead may as well be a cluster of life boats. 
Maybe not orange. I like green.
For everyone’s information I was involved with the original Oceania Project in a small way. I’m also in several space organisations. And I have a Degree in sustainable Development, sustainable agriculture and renewable energy, water and sewerage. |
wohl1917 | Bruce! Here we have about the ‘smallest-individual-structure-[that]-can-survive-[in the]-deep-ocean’!!! A bit too small for my taists but on the right track… < http://ocr.wikia.com/wiki/Oceanic_Citizens_Republic_Wiki> |
tusavision | It’s worth noting that the house can be fully submerged with equilized pressure in the dry portions minimizing building costs, and the humans can take more fuel economic precautions to deal with surving the storm. That makes it a simple matter of using hydraulic pumps to purge ballast tanks on a robotic AUV house with a dry box for furnature vs. a pressure housing for humans which is expensive. I like the lifeboat idea! I think this portion of my post bears repeating because in it lies the solution to all of the enginnering problems that have so far been causing budgets to skyrocket, and feasability to stall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_pool You do not have to choose between building a house to withstand crushing pressure and waterproof furniture. I assure everyone that a couch does not suffer from decompression sickness.  So what about the humans? They could have a lifeboat like the one just mentioned. Another option: they could be close enough to the shore that they can simply lock the front door and sink their house to the ocean floor. Then they take their fishing boat in to harbour and eat clam chowder until the storm clouds pass. What if we want this structure to be shore independant? First of all: Is that truly a prerequisite? I don’t think this feature merits waiting to settle the second to last frontier personally. But let’s get ahead of ourselves for a second: Let’s suppose that we’re way too swashbuckling to ever consider dependance on the shore like a bunch of yellow landlubbers: How expensive is a scuba refill station? ~$3K apparently http://www.scuba.com/scuba-gear-155/030405/Max-Air-Max-Air-35-Scuba-Compressor.html And how many scuba tanks would we need to squirrel away per person in order to camp out in our living room at 4-5 ATM? I just can’t picture a storm lasting more than 12 hours. That’s a lot of scuba, and a slow decompression ascent in our dive bell abode, but it’s certainly been done before! This is emergency procedures we’re talking about here. It may not be pleasant, but neither are 50ft waves common! Things get even simpler if we can pour a concrete igloo with redundant SNUBA systems drawing air from a snorkel. |
J.L.-Frusha | Frusha: As a matter of fact, I am an engineer; one that has spent a few months working fulltime on these exact issues. You are not going to move a spar out of the way of a storm, and you are not going to make it more economical by building it out of standard concrete. And I am not going to write a ten-page analysis here as to why; youll have to take my word for it for now. If you know anything at all about Naval Architecture and Ferrocement, you would know that most of the time, a Ferrocement ship is, in fact, lighter than a Steel one, for the same design load. It has ONE major weakness, for the purposes I propose… Sharp-object puncture. PERIOD. I can’t design it, but I can damn sure read the prints and specs. and build to that. At 30 lbs. of Steel per cubic foot of mortar, that’s a heck of a big weight savings. That doesn’t include the evaporation of water, allowing the crystaline matrix to form, which is why cement and concrete get stronger over time(typically 15-25 years). You may scare some of these folks, but I know the facts. You want everyone to do it your way, the same old way it’s been done for decades. I “ain’t skeered o’ the truth,” which you seem to doggedly misrepresent. Get off of my back. Later, J.L..F. If you can’t swim with the big fish, stick to the reef You can only bluff the intelligent ones for so long, then it’s time to hit the road. |
Melllvar | I very much like the idea of using submersibles for low-budget seasteading. Unlike typical military or research subs, they wouldn’t even need to go very deep or fast. Infact, they don’t even necessarily need to be able to move underwater. A slow moving pressure chamber with redundant safety mechanisms and capable of submerging a few tens of meters in bad weather would do me just fine (I think). Know where I can buy one? |
©2012 The Seasteading Institute
