Forum Replies Created
December 4, 2013 at 10:40 pm #22433
Have you looked into the stresses on the diagonal legs as a wave passes under the multi-ton platform they are holding up? I believe anything subject to wave forces will eventually fail, and i would not want the lift-sink forces of the bobbing wave generator moving my living space around anyhow.December 4, 2013 at 10:35 pm #22432
Well, basically, i cannot afford a nuclear reactor or it’s fuel, and i have nothing of value to pursuade anyone to let me live on such a platform. So it’s sorta mute to me. You know they have had several nuclear icebreakers running for decades, don’t you?July 9, 2013 at 12:17 pm #22142
to convince me the wave zone is *NOT* the place to put all my money.July 9, 2013 at 8:39 am #22136
I again tend to agree with you. Almost everything you said is true. I cannot afford enough aluminum to build anything, so my goal will be to use as little steel as possible, to make it less of a money waste to keep replacing it as it rusts away, and active cathodic protection and paints and EPDM to forestall the rust.
I don’t think a barge, with so much area in the wave zone, is the best approach for a seastead. There’s enough pictures of aircaft carriers with waves over the bow, and wave damage, and battleships with daylight under the keel at the bow, and oil transports with broken backs, to convince me the wave zone is the place to put all my money.
I agree with what you say about a group being better able to build a larger structure, but it hasn’t happened yet, and it could have happened at any time over the last 50 years if it was going to happen. And now, my ptsd concerning neighbors is too great to be on a bargeful of humans. Even if i visit, i’d go home at the end of the day.
I do wish you a lot of luck. Your business startup barge may need transportation services to land and back, perhaps i can participate that small way some day.July 8, 2013 at 6:06 am #22134
OCEANOPOLIS said: But living on a 32′ cat is not seasteading.
I rather agree (some people may disagree), but i can’t build and test a seastead where i live, and i own no deep waterfront, and rent is too pricey. The cat is to be a liveaboard workboat, akin to a very tiny drill rig support vessel in appearance, able to carry tons on-deck in 20ft lengths. And i know of no such boats for sale, and no boats at all at the price i can build one (and i have built a smaller cat boat, so i can prove that). There is a local lake i can test in/on, then i unbolt pieces and carry them to the ocean, and out on the workboat, for quick reassembly in deep water.July 7, 2013 at 9:50 am #22132
There is no way i’ll ever be able to live on such a structure, there’s too much cost involved. If you started the build process today, it wouldn’t be in the water for 10 years. I am aiming for a new 32ftx20ft swath-catamaran boat in the water next year, two years at the latest (i hope). Monday when everyone goes back to work i can begin cutting steel.July 6, 2013 at 8:33 am #22128
Yes, there’s a lot of relatively shallow water off Fla west coast, good for a Texas Tower approach, if you can anchor it down (deep screw piles aren’t cheap to install) and you can convince the gov there’s a good reason for it and that you won’t be a ship obstruction (but you always will be). For those reasons my next boat will be a “work boat”, which i can live aboard as needed, and use to ferry stuff out to a larger less mobile structure.
I was asking someone who favors barges, if you have a platform with the same surface area as a barge, with semisubmerged hulls and near-zero waterline area and enough float capacity, why go with a barge?July 5, 2013 at 11:59 pm #22126
Two photos appearing on the new owner’s facebook page in 2013, and in Wikimedia dated June 2012, shows storms since the USCG inspection report dated January 2012 have knocked out several large sections of the K-bracing at the waterline, severely compromising the stability of the tower and it’s resistance to future storms.
So Zapwater hasn’t made any repairs at all so far, and i fear the tower won’t last thru two years. I don’t understand what mechanism the federal gov has if the repairs are not made in two years, but i’d have thought they’d come into play when big hunks of the main structure begin falling into the ocean.
I think the value is only partially in the tower and platform itself, part of the value is the right to be there, above the waves or in the surrounding water. You cannot just go out and plant a tower somewhere, or go out and permanently anchor something. It’s possible, maybe, that even if the platform and legs collapse under Zap’s mismanagement, as long as there is some leg coming up out of the bottom, that rights might exist to build new legs in and onto the original stubs. At 42inch diameter, you can cram a lot of supporting steel structure into the whatever leg is left in the seafloor.July 5, 2013 at 10:49 pm #22125
Charles Cain , anything off “public land” will be under intense usgc scrutiny. I suggested contacting timberland companies with waterfront, and leasing the minimum land (50×50 feet?) to guarantee a right to be there (on the land or in the adjoining water). Since the point of seasteading is to be off the land, making a point to the timberland owner that there will be no “improvements” (no road access, no fencing, no utilities, no construction) done to the land is important, so is the point that anything done in the water is not the responsibility of or liability to the land owner. This is often the arrangement with hunting clubs, who rent access to large swaths of timberland to hunt deer, pigs, etc.. If you are half mile offshore and the uscg pulls up and asks where your boat(s) is homeported, you can point to a floating dock tied to a few trees and show your lease papers. Your homeport marina is usually not where you live, but it can be.July 5, 2013 at 10:26 pm #22124
Sparky came in and within seconds was asking people to talk to him. He then went on to say you can breathe the air that’s in water (there’s far more CO2 in water than in the atmosphere), and the CO2 concentration in a scuba air supply doesn’t matter. He stated CO2 prompts breathing, but he cannot find the corresponding datapoint that increased CO2 levels causes acidosis, which is what 1) stimulates breathing and 2) can kill you. He cannot think far enough to consider CO2 causes breathing so the body can get rid of the CO2, and if it cannot get rid of CO2, the body dies.
In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.
He also said what’s more important is the sealed enclosed batteries powering a scuba rebreather are dangerous to the fish swimming alongside. He has appeared and stated “facts” like this before. It’s very frustrating.July 5, 2013 at 10:04 pm #22123
OCEANOPOLIS , i feel the same way. Do you have a webpage documenting what you have tried or done?June 24, 2013 at 10:29 pm #22096
Are you buying? Everyone throws out ideas that take million$ to make happen, so nothing gets done.
I built one boat that was registered and numbered, plans for the 2nd boat got scuttled along with some materials, and i am working on the 3rd boat. All with very very little money, in hostile conditions. What are you doing? Did you know a accommodation oil-rig platform for workers can cost as much as one million per worker? You know they get evacuated when hurricanes approach, even if new and anchored? Buying onto Blueseed is pricey as heck, but talk is cheap.June 14, 2013 at 9:26 pm #22063
A not-powered not-state-registered vessel out in the ocean. -)) hehe.
But i was trying to get it registered, as a not-powered vessel. Why not on the ocean? You can legally float a non-powered vessel in state waters (and depending on what reg you read, that includes the 23mile state limit offshore, altho the USCG seems to think it’s limited to bays, rivers, and the ICW) and not register it too. I only wanted some docs saying i wasn’t unknown, i wasn’t a pirate, i wasn’t hiding, but i have no propulsion ability in that vessel. If they call a few hp to orient the boat “propulsion”, then ok, but it’s a lie to any other vessel that thinks i can get out of their path. I believe that’s important.June 13, 2013 at 2:33 pm #22061
USCG replied to my further questions, saying : go ask US Customs, because the USCG doesn’t have a procedure for an not-powered not-state-reg’d vessel out in the ocean. This smells like the olde run-around, so i’m not going to bother. But what it forces me to do is put some sort of propulsion on every vessel, so the state will accept registration, so the USCG can blindly process the state’s numbers, so the vessel isn’t restricted to bays, rivers, and the ICW. Such a registration, if i read the regs correctly, also mandates “free” re-registration every year, and maintaining a good method of contact at all times. I don’t know how free it will be to motor into a usa port every year, or maintain a valid phone number on the vessel free-floating on the ocean somewhere. There is still the wide loophole of picking the state where you prefer the registration terms. And i will still propose the vessel’s orientation thrusters are it’s propulsion, because there is no regulation on what size the vessel’s propulsion must be (since a 12v trolling motor on a rowboat makes it a motorboat, then surely any 20hp on my vessel qualifies it).June 10, 2013 at 10:08 pm #22036
Looks like a length issue to posting, i broke it in half and it went thru. That’s sorta stupid.