Forum Replies Created
April 3, 2014 at 8:37 pm #23289
We are certainly off topic on the Oceanic concretes sphere habitat thread, but do i see 12mm marine steel plating in these pictures ?!! this is a thickness considered normal for the shell of 250m merchant ship of several thousands of tons of displacement – looks like “seriously overbuilt” for a floatie like that…April 3, 2014 at 4:39 pm #23287
Kat, keep an eye on the required maintenance shedule, and build the structure to enable bottom sandblasting and repainting on a regular base. Steel has advantages and disadvantages like any material you use. As long as your personal castle fits into a drydock and can be taken out of the water once a year your personal version of seasteading can well be built on a steel hull. The forming of round shapes (especially Sphere Habitats) is a bit tricky in steel plating…April 3, 2014 at 9:07 am #23284
Why going oceanic is the next big thing to come in business…
http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t56680633/the-reasons-why-oceanic-business-is-the-next-big-thing-to-co/April 1, 2014 at 1:28 pm #23282
Shell, tube, truss structure seastead cluster…related thread: http://www.seasteading.org/forum-list/topic/oceanic-concrete-sphere-habitat/
Kat, I just try to point to sites where a theme has been explored earlier to avoid the repetition of threads. Forum users who are not aware of those earlier discussions can read it and catch up. So we can focus on “new developments”.
Many of the old threads has been terribly sidetracked and repetitive so that it is actually necessary to put the relevant passages in context and cut out the sidetracking comments. All this is part of a intent to get the forums back to the frontpage from where they where removed a couple of years ago due to their “intelectual deterioration”. I created most of those forums to keep track of the overall discussion process myself.April 1, 2014 at 7:45 am #23280
Earlier threads on how to start:
Seasteading outpost Belize
Seasteading outpost Rincon
http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t46080743/seasteading-location-rincon-del-mar-colombia/April 1, 2014 at 7:15 am #23279
The square glass house design is for the Cholon Lagoon, Bahia de Barbacoas, Caño del Loro, and Bahia de Cartagena, San Bernardo, Baru. The whole area is outside the path of hurricanes those bays are big bays (many squaremiles) protected from ocean waves by coral reefs, surrounded by dampening mangrove fields, so you can count with a “uninterrupted fishpond ambient” during decades.
This of “best of the Continent” calm water features made Cartagena the naval center of the new world during the time of the spanish overseas empire. You can not do that in Florida where hurricanes are part of the deal. The suggestion for a shell that can deal with a bit of waves would be rather like in the picture above.
To see more about the cholon lagoon and similar calm water features around cartagena check out the “Navegante Cholon”
Spanish overseas empire in the new world.
Skyline of Cartagena today, a modern city with a strong marine tradion looking out to the sea. Latin Americas most promising emerging economy, best investor protection, Seasteaders welcome.
Offshoring, Floating Business Headquarters, Yachts, Global Citicens, Welcome. Oceanic business development key player network.
http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/t56680633/the-reasons-why-oceanic-business-is-the-next-big-thing-to-co/March 31, 2014 at 10:06 pm #23277
Do something that inspires, attracts, and has a potential to be big – its not the size of the platform that matters its the size of its capacity to be something important.March 28, 2014 at 7:18 am #23265
Ocean, the key for seasteading is not “to float out something” the Tanka, Moken, Uru, Neutrinos, Sowa, are “floating out something” for 1200 years now and never went to a “powerful sea city type Venice”. The key is floating out something that draws investor interest because it has a “potential to be important in the future” – this is what makes the canoe above “relevant” while other canoes (built of wood) are “irrelevant” to seasteading.
See more about the logics behind that.
I am not a “ramform missionary” you can put ocean colonization on the fast track in many ways.
But you can not put it on the fast track without doing something “relevant” and “interesting for investors”.
A sea city should project its purpose with cutting edge architecture…March 28, 2014 at 6:46 am #23264
Ramazan, the video is a nice illustration how you can build a shell of any form modular – if you increase the diameter of the rings steadyly you can grow it to ANY size including several kilometers of lenght and your “construction site size” will never exceed the size of a shoebox the transport of the modules can be in the trunk of a car and adding modules while the build is floating in the water can also easyly be solved. You can add “shell elements” for ever. It should also be no major problem to add the modules without “grinding against the structure”. When we talked modular here in seasteading some 3 years ago the “ideas for modular” where just not radical enough – people always thought in boxes triangles hexagons in a kind of “lego sistem” repeating the same part over and over again – this was just a lack of capacity to think outside the box – the video shows exactly how you can overcome lego sistems and get modular without any “form restrictions” you can build anything you can imagine modular. Shells like the above foto are inside the “feasibility range” of such a process. You can also think in just creating the form for the concrete cast with that process and then reuse the plastics to create new form parts over and over again.
Most of all this kind of technology has potential to get investor interest to a seastead even if it is just a few squaremeter of size – investor interest is the key in “transition capacity” which is key for reaching city size.
see more about transition capacity:
This is definitly a thing to keep in mind.March 28, 2014 at 6:13 am #23263
Concrete Honeycomb Shell engineering modern design.
The data kat it bringing up here sounds like “zoo” messing up the basic mix design to me (30,000 linear feet of cracks sounds like somebody wanted to turn that into a “liftime repair job”), i have data of dozends of floating concrete structures where not a single one has shown any kind of problem in 30 years at sea. http://concretesubmarine.activeboard.com/f541915/outstanding-floating-concrete-structures-news/
I think that paints the picture – the question “does it last for ever” or “is it desaster bound” depends basicly on “who is in charge” of the build. Its the builder – not the material.March 27, 2014 at 5:22 pm #23257
No doubt you can “mess up a composite material from every direction” and on base of each of its components and you can find studies that document cases of each of those cases in practice. Therefore it is so important to become crafty with each of the components have a clear picture what are the problems you really need to look after, what are the imaginary problems, what is the range of each issue, how you stay in the center of the “workable zone” and avoid setups where only a “extremly crafty fellow” can produce a product that works. What you look after is a setup where the material still has a certain level of “forgivness for small production irregularities” and still comes out good. “Extra water at will of the craftsman” is definitly one of the “don’t ever do it setups”. Low cement quantity and quality also. Fibers that do not connect, misdesigns that open cracks, trough the protective layer, etc., etc,.etc, counting on paint to cover up fundamental composite design errors is problematic and fails almost certainly. The risk is that steping into that witout testing and personal experience you end up looking after “imaginary problems” and create real problems by trying to solve the imaginary ones. The good thing is there is no hidden failure mode – if you mess a concrete shell in marine ambient up the failure will be at plain sight in a few months (concrete spalling) and no paint can cover it up. So the good way is to use each component in a series of well documented tests and look after what happens a couple of months (years) later to the material produced this way.March 27, 2014 at 8:40 am #23254
The rebar i see in those videos is supposed (and designed) to be the “fiber component” of a 20cm strong structural concrete wall and have a concrete cover of at least 3cm (according to european concrete engineering norms) to “avoid its rusting” – so to make it part of a 2cm wall and leave it under merely 1mm concrete cover and complicate the proper embedding of the steel by “littering the place” with chicken wire that hinders as proper void free embedding of the fiber component into the cement matrik additionaly, is a “clumpsy and unwise use of the fiber component” at best. In fact it is “utmost surprising” that there are shells that where built with that kind of method that do NOT rust and fall apart in a decade. That talks good of the “craftiness” of their builders in the sense that they got relative good embedding in spite of the chicken wire hindering them. If i would have the task to figure out a method to produce “short lasting shells” i would really choose something like that…a good shell will last 200 years for sure and probably 2000 years (as the Panteon) without showing minor signs of decay – so the fact that a few “ferrocement shells” last a couple of decades does not say a lot either. When talking about seasteading we need foundations that last centuries or millenia in marine ambient – i doubt that methods like shown in the videos and pictures are up to that task.
I would suggest to look into the following:
1) do not use steel rebar if you can not assure a proper embedding depth of 3cm.
2) forget the clumpsy chicken wire.
3) find a better method to hold the wet matrix material in place while curing than chicken wire.
4) explore non rusting fiber components where the required cover of 3cm can not be achived.
5) keep steel reinforcements out of the “spashzone” where corrosion is expected to be worst.
Basicly ferrocement is only on the table because it was the “first idea” of Joseph Monier to introduce some kind of fiber into a cement matrix and get a composite material out of it.
Like always the “first idea” almost never is the “best idea” the better ideas come if you give it a second third, and fifth tought – that include feasible solutions to the above list of issues. Just forget “ferrocement” and think about smarter fiber components and smarter fillers and smarter aplication methods, do a series of tests find the better way. With space age fiber components and understanding of shell structures at hand we can really do a better job than the “ferrocement” invention of Monier…March 26, 2014 at 8:26 pm #23250
I would be a bit concerned about voids, rebar rusting and adequate steel embedding in that process…honestly i have seen smarter ways to build shells, especially to “introduce the fiber component” into the build. Would consider this close to “worst case scenario” for producing a rusting rebar desaster in a marine splash zone ambient.
http://vimeo.com/50990903March 26, 2014 at 5:14 pm #23244
I am confused what exactly is that you did NOT understand in starting canoe size and grow it from there. Please read the matrix printing thread
The big things have small beginnings thread.
The starting seasteading on small scale thread.
The ramform thread.
We have have been through that several times.March 26, 2014 at 4:48 pm #23242
Statfjord C base honeycomb shell.
Small fiber concrete float.
Of course many different aproaches are feasible – just analyze the costs and you will see that you can build a simple shell or honeycomb structure that gives you the same amount of real estate squaremeters at 20-50 times less cost – so as long as “housing” is the purpose i see no good reason why to include expensive steel structures into a project.
You can build such honeycomb shell structures incredible big (like statfjord) as well as incredible small and everything in between you also can build andy shape you can imagine .
So where is the benefit of building complicated and expensive steel deck mixed structures as shown in the image.
The idea is to get most bang for the bug.