Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 242 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #23365
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    There’s 6019 “members” registered on this forum, and that’s the caliber of conversation? This is so not encouraging.

    #23363
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    I believe Ellmer is just using this forum to improve his own Google pagerank. The pictures are no more helpful than pics in the scifi section of deviantart. The pictures address no technical challenges to being on the water, no social issues, and cost more than the budget of medium sized towns.

    #23355
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    Again with the $billion dreams.

    #23346
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    Well, SWATH boats aren’t new, some floating oil rigs are way deeper than 200ft and not 2 miles long/wide, so i am not clear what i am thinking that’s new? Almost 40 years ago i used four 55-gallon drums to make a floating platform, a few years ago i made a nice lil pontoon boat, and all along people have been doing what they have always been doing, so isn’t it time for something new? Besides, if a floating base can be made that “anchors” itself into deep calm waters with heave plates or large-bore sunken pontoons, and actively stays still within a few inches, regular active stabilization tech can suspend a deck stable witin fractions of an inch atop that. Altho i am speaking of vertical and lateral stabilisation, skyscrapers and floating wind turbines have used tuned/active mass stabilizers for decades: http://tinyurl.com/n4pc5da , why not a seastead?

    #23344
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    My figure for 200ft draft is based on several points:

    1. wavelengths for storm waves
    2. depth of troughs of storm waves
    3. finding non-moving water
    4. OTEC cooling
    5. why not?

    Points 1, 2, 3 relate directly to habitability. You must not tip over, go under, or be smacked by wave peaks. If the boat motion affects your handwriting, or pouring a glass of water, or sloshing in the toilet, it’s too much movement to be acceptable by most people or animals. Item 4 is about practicality, so even if there is not enough energy difference for making useable electricity, perhaps the deep water is cool enough to aid air conditioning on a hot day, it’s certainly 100psi for storing compressed air, and 100psi at the right temperature makes storing propane trivial. Item 5 is that 200ft is simply not that far, the shortest route to my mailbox is 200ft. Re item 3, there’s not that much water movement at 200ft (assuming the ocean floor is still some ways down), so there’s quite significantly less tension stress on concrete parts.
     
    The thing is about rules for anchoring is that it’s not practical to have a collapseable set of 200ft legs under a boat just so you can get closer to shore, that’s hardly what seasteading is about anyhow. It may be practical to drop the legs off in deep water and tow the deck to shore, but that leaves the legs remaining out in the deep, hopefully anchored, even if sitting on the bottom. So i am wondering if there are already deep anchorages allocated, or if it’s allowed but the words aren’t on the maps to signify it.

    #23343
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    We, or i, are, or is, talking, or writing, about floating platforms, or decks. This url gives a pretty complete rundown on what “heave plates” are about: http://www.google.com/patents/US7878734 . But the basic fact is waves interact with bulk, and floatation requires some bulk in the floaties (displacing the water with air), and if the floats are below the waves (as in a SWATH boat) there’s less for the waves to push around. To think outside the box, and mix up some ideas, if the SWATH boat extended it’s legs (with the floatation hulls as feet) down to where you’d normally drop heave plates to, the movement resistance provided by the heave plates is now provided by the boat’s floatation pontoons. Make them, and the bottom 100ft of the legs (between the pontoons and the boat above the waves) with concrete (to keep the weight down below), and you have a very deep draft, but fairly lightweight (100 tons), very stable floating platform. Heave plates are used on oil platforms, come in various designs, and are sunk as deep as practical below wave interaction, and/or as a way to lower the center of gravity.
     
    But where do you come up with the “2 miles long” figure for a seastead?

    #23341
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    Ocean, sorry about that, the whole submarine fleet is doing it wrong. Here’s a pic of a stowed anchor up undeneath a sub: http://boomer.user-services.com/drydock/990313-12-675.html . And here is the anchor deployed: http://boomer.user-services.com/photos/990313-13/990313-13-675.jpg . Clearly it’s not being dropped off the bow or stern. I have seen other boats where there was an anchor trunk down thru the hull, pretty much just a pipe, but the anchor was dropped down thru it from the chain locker, nothing was up on deck.
     
    You said “As for the rest of it (where to or not to anchor), it’s all marked on the nautical charts covering the area you are navigating in.”, but i have not seen anchoring areas for 200ft of draft, which is why i asked.

    #23338
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    With 200ft of vessel draft, in 250ft of water, i don’t need 1500ft of anchor chain if i deploy the anchor from the keel. I agree with you that deploying the anchor from the topside would be really impractical in this situation. The goal of the question isn’t to locate a port with 200ft of draft, the goal is to be a reasonable reason to anchor away from port. Simply put, the regulatory agency in charge cannot expect my vessel to be near shore if doing so will ground the vessel.

    #23335
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    Steve said

    Whilst some ships are too big for some ports they don’t get chartered to go to those ports so the situation of them not being able to enter any port or get close to any land mass just doesn’t arise.

    But i am pretty sure there’s no dock with alongside depth of 200ft, no bay with 200ft depth clear to the ocean, etc.. I thought of the lightering area because it pretty much must be outside traffic lanes. Even if i decided to allocate some remaining brain cells to reducing the draft temporarily, it may not be practical.

    #23329
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    Ocean, i do not understand why you are on my ass over suggesting TSI could be doing a better job at what they advertise they are. I do not understand why you think i am asking them (or anyone) to build me a “shiny seastead”. The reality is The Seasteading Institute has instituted nothing. People have been on the water for centuries, there should be nothing new to discover, and in fact there’s reams of info available, but none of it is at TSI.

    #23327
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    No, i can find the info somewhere else. But the $millions spent on Clubstead and everything else that won’t get built, and then asking for donations on kickstarter, when TSI doesn’t have a basic library containg the data i am finding and archiving for my own use, it ticks me off. And they have yearly get-togethers of the lawyers and other rich folks, and i watched a few videos, and there was nothing useful in them. The biggest lesson i am learning from this is to not share the research data i am collecting, and that bites too.

    #23323
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    But you said

    You can try to get a permanent anchor permit as a bouy for this and promise to run and maintain the lights of a “reefmarker” to facilitate the coast guards work. This makes you a “desireable piece of infrastructure” instead of a piece of “undesireable development”. The picture on the right is my prototype. In your case i would not apply for vessel status applying for this status has a lot of downsides

    And now you say

    Sure mobility, make the concrete shell blimp shape and put a small engine in it – but that would already be the “Captain nemo float out”

    #23321
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    Ellmer, doesn’t “a permanent anchor permit as a bouy for this and promise to run and maintain the lights of a “reefmarker” to facilitate the coast guards work” make the home not-mobile?

    #23319
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    Ok, let me re-phrase the question…. does anyone know of sites where ships can be anchored indefinately because their draft is so deep it prevents them from entering any port, or even getting closer to any land mass? This wouldn’t be lightering, where a vessel may be temporarily while being unloaded. I see “lightering zones” on some charts, but if my seastead isn’t being unloaded, can i still park it there, with no one aboard, while i take a go-fast boat to shore for groceries?
     
    This has ramifications for entering a country, if you cannot get your vessel to the dock because the water there isn’t deep enough. I figure a customs inspector can drive out to see your place, and decide there if they can tolerate you visiting, but while you are in customs arranging such a visit, your vessel will be unmanned in their territorial waters.

    #23318
    Avatar of KatOnTri
    KatOnTri
    Participant

    So it’s only for billionaires, someone with money to burn 10,000′s of gallons of fuel each month, and pay a crew. Plus the $millions cost of the sphere or ship. It’s not happening here, there’s no reason to. This is really getting depressing, Ellmer. I don’t have $millions.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 242 total)