Forum Replies Created
October 13, 2012 at 7:35 pm #21145
Bigelow Aerospace is testing inflatable space hotels, in a lower orbit than ISS. But the cost to go through these stations would be, putting sarcasm aside, skyrocketing.October 13, 2012 at 7:24 pm #21144
In many countries where gambling is forbidden by law, offshore casinos and bingoes do a lot of profit. In Brazil, for example (Where I do live), a cruiseship with other country’s flag yields a lot of profit with gambling.October 13, 2012 at 5:55 pm #21143
It looks like some anime spaceship, I think I’ve seen something similar in Cowboy Bebop…
Fact, it would be a great lifeboat. But it’s too small to a seastead project.November 2, 2011 at 11:10 pm #16139Seasteader- wrote:
Try this one, if we get a series of stripped down earth filled supertankers (all equipment and engines removed and then planted iwth trees instead) then anchor then seed corals in an appropriately shallow spot, we’d immdiately have an ‘island’ capable of supporting whoever paid for it. The below example might be 5K per person after all the useful equipment is sold. No more taxes, no more red tape and a simple constitution should be in place immediately. For 10 people, each could have at least 2 stories of 28m2, not withstanding any extended pontoon structures tethered to the series of connected ships? http://commercial.apolloduck.com/display.phtml?aid=182292 Thoughts?
Ok, now that things came back to normal, I can analyze this.
Earth-filled supertankers, even with the extra weight, are vulnerable to strong waves and the worst enemy of big steel vessels: Rust. Solution? Use the steel hulls as molds to make concrete hulls, if is desirable that the structure endure for more than 50 years.
OR, a little more bold concept, huge concrete hulls OUTSIDE the steel hulls…OK, forget it.
Shallow spots? there aren’t many outside the predetermined EEZs. Because this, I insist in semi-submerged flotation, as in semi-submersible oil rigs. The structures noted by me would be partially filled with water (Or earth) to increase weight and take 50% of the structure underwater.
Back to the supertanker, that are also a good idea (Just needing to be refined) for a start-up seastead (I said START-UP, not UPSTART!), we need two things that are crucial: 1) A way to protect steel hulls from rusting, at least the underwater part; 2) A way to keep the vessel firmly tied in its position, even under strong storms. For the first, I thought in that plastic foam used in freezers as an outer layer. For the second, I thought in connect the vessels, just like my “hexatoon” idea.
“A Dream you dream Alone, is a Dream you dream Alone; But a Dream you dream Together becomes Reality.” Raul SeixasNovember 2, 2011 at 10:13 pm #16138
Anything within the 200 nautic miles from the Brazilian Coast is considered Brazilian Property. Build/settle a Seastead near Amazon’s mouth? Yeah, it’s possible. Start a micronation in this very place? No way, dude. You needed be off the limits of Brazilian EEZ to start a sovereign nation without consequences.
Trust me, I’m Brazilian.
“A Dream you dream Alone, is a Dream you dream Alone; But a Dream you dream Together becomes Reality.” Raul SeixasSeptember 27, 2010 at 2:03 pm #11409Altaica wrote:
You don’t know much about break waters do you?
No, I don’t. I’m not an engineer, unlike the most of the people posting here, I presume.
It was to I say “ballasted”, or “moored” instead “anchored”?
Or did I say another silliness?
“A Dream you dream Alone, is a Dream you dream Alone; But a Dream you dream Together becomes Reality.” Raul SeixasSeptember 6, 2010 at 1:45 pm #11285Terraformer wrote:
Well, we could always use them as the basis for an artificial atoll. Sink them in a ring, maybe fill them with sand dredged from the bottom, and let coral do it’s work. If we do it in a shallow area, with maybe 15m depth… we could then fill the center with dredged sand as well.
This is the biggest of all the problems. Where to find such area in international waters? I am not an oceanographer, but I bet that if somebody find one shallow area in international waters, beyond 200 nautical miles from any country, this person would be the luckiest person of the world.
______________________________________September 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm #11284
Putz, that’s a great news.
Congratulations to Hadean Team, this Hexatoon is really big!
Well Done² !
And congrats by the aquaculture, too.
______________________________________September 6, 2010 at 12:59 pm #11283
Firstly, I am letting here the link to the video of the engine working. This is the engine I was speaking of.
Ok, let’s go to replies. I am noticing you I am not a physicist, neither I want to reinvent the wheel. I am just joining things that work to create apparently a great stuff that nobody has thought before.J. wrote:
‘Free’ energy can be captured, but it’s not cheap… Wind-generators and batteries, being more durable than compressors, engines and such… There are wind-powered compressors, which would assist with shop-use…
Unfortunately, “wind generators” are kinda huge to be applied to a seastead that needs to save space. Or even to a cargo ship.J. wrote:
As for the ‘compressed-air-motor,’ it is nothing more than a fancy steam engine…
See the video before get this conclusion.J. wrote:
(Sign) Never be afraid to try something new…
That’s what I’m doing. ^^Melllvar wrote:
How do you expect your 24 kW dynamo to run compressors for a 52 kW engine?
Generating electricity. Or it’s needed a 52 Kw electric engine to take enough air to a 52 Kw air-compressed engine do nonstop running?wrote:
I also doubt cars will be powered by compressed air anytime soon. Not because the engines are bad but because of the lousy energy storage capacity in compressed air. I think it is even worse than batteries, and those are already pretty bad (compared to gasoline or diesel). There is a reason why all vehicles are powered by hydrocarbons, and it’s not some big conspiracy by evil oil companies.
MDI and other companies are improving their engines. And the reason why “all” vehicles are powered by hydrocarbons are these: 1)- Cheaper oil – Not always – ; 2)- An electric engine was added to start the gas engine; 3)- Oil industries’ greed, yes sir.
If don’t you believe in conspiracies, why did Chevron and Texaco buy the rights over the production of Ni-MH batteries (And never produced them), and GM destroyed the EV1s, being that those cars would stay with their satisfied customers? And why Stanley Meyer was deadly poisoned after receiving death threats? But talking about conspiracies will start an offtopic.
No fear: I’ll try my hypothesis in an university, and if I’ll be wrong, when I find you, I’ll pay a beer to each one of you, How about it?
______________________________________September 3, 2010 at 6:49 pm #11267tusavision wrote:
Lessons are valuable and if you learn something by actually testing your hypothesis then by all means: please do construct your machine.
Do me a favor and when it doesn’t work: come to a different conclussion than “We just need to make it bigger. Please donate money to help me finance this.”
Don’t worry, I am planning to test my hypothesis and I will blame nobody but myself if it doesn’t work (And use the air-powered engine in my car). Plus, sorry if did I offend you.Melllvar wrote:
What he’s saying is that your system will not work because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. A closed system cannot produce energy out of nothing, which is what you’re describing (see perpetual motion machine).
Hey, air is nothing? That’s not a closed system: it sucks air from the surroundings, and this air feeds the air-powered engine.
It’s like an oil-powered generator, but uses air instead oil.
And from the “exhaust” of the engine goes just cool air, that can to cool the engine that sucks the air to the compressor.
I did some estimation to an air-powered engine of 70 hp, that is more than enough to move a 6 Kw dynamo, or just enough to move 24Kw dynamo. I just need to do more calculations, about the air consumption by the engine, and size of the match compressor, but to avoid more complaints, let’s say that you may have a second compressor and may power it on from times to times to fill the reservoir (Remembering that this reservoir is aparted from the compressors, and receives compressed air from them) without to need to power off the whole generator. Once you pay nothing for the air used, it’s still free energy.
______________________________________September 2, 2010 at 9:49 pm #11263
I am face palming so hard right now…
…Batteries. Won’t do.
Why are hydroelectric dams…
Take a physics class btw. You would like it.
It was completely nonsense to me.
Man… I am not willing to say that it is a perfect scheme. But it works, unless an air-compressed engine loses power continously while working, or the air compressor sucks less air across the time. A little loss does not matter, unless it means loss of power that leads to an energy cut.
It’s nothing about physics, it’s about practicity.
Compressed-air engine move a dynamo, to generate electric power, to activate an air compressor, that takes air to the engine!tusavision wrote:
Now: in terms of power distribution: your idea has merit. Compressed air has this nice benefit of being virtually lossless. In fact: the loss takes place at the motor or compressor. Similarly: elevating water in to water towers is very efficient.
One of the greatest thing you can do is cut out redundant unecessary steps from the equation.
THIS was useful, thanks.
______________________________________September 1, 2010 at 9:30 pm #11253Terraformer wrote:
We could possibly sink containers on top of each other in shallow areas, to make an artificial island. How tall are they?
If the containers were made of concrete or other saltwater resistant structure, it would be an acceptable idea.
Shallow areas usually are near to (Or inside) territorial waters of any country (Vide Minerva Reef). Or else, they are ecological sanctuaries, plenty of beautiful coral reefs.
Containers are made of steel, that rusts in a couple of years inside salty water. Unless they be used as basis for artificial reefs, it wouldn’t be possible.
______________________________________September 1, 2010 at 8:42 pm #11252ellmer - http://yook3.com wrote:
Consider it just the leg of a semisubmersible platform – without the platform – living in the leg.
Why not, two long “legs”, one beside the other, and a living space above them, too?
______________________________________September 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm #11251
Hmmm… It seems good, it would seem to a floating jack-up, and modularity would be guaranteed by this triangular form.
But I have some reservations how about these elyptical “winged” columns. If a rough wave hit the columns in the wider side, it wouldn’t tilt the seastead and sink it? I preferred to use cylindrical columns, that receive waves from any side with the same endurance.
______________________________________September 1, 2010 at 1:36 pm #11245ellmer - http://yook3.com wrote:
PS – why would you load the floating elements on barges to bring them to the building site when they can float anyhow – just tow them out.
Oh, I forgot… These images were not made by me, I copied them from the ambitious Japanese project Shimizu Green Float, that resembles a growing of Lilypads and (Not confirmed) will be built in Dubai.
They planned to use barges to build more modules without a need to bring them from a continent or island, because they planned to make these “cities” in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, in the equatorial region.
My plan is different: Firstly, build the modules in the continent, towing then to the area where the island will be built; and later, when the island get the desired initial size (And required area), transfer the module factory facility to the very island.