Forum Replies Created
April 17, 2014 at 5:28 pm #23355
Again with the $billion dreams.April 16, 2014 at 8:35 am #23346
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?April 15, 2014 at 10:45 pm #23344
My figure for 200ft draft is based on several points:
- wavelengths for storm waves
- depth of troughs of storm waves
- finding non-moving water
- OTEC cooling
- 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.April 15, 2014 at 10:03 pm #23343
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?April 15, 2014 at 8:41 pm #23341
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.April 15, 2014 at 12:13 pm #23338
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.April 14, 2014 at 1:55 pm #23335
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.April 13, 2014 at 3:45 am #23329
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.April 12, 2014 at 6:53 pm #23327
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.April 11, 2014 at 4:05 pm #23323
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”April 11, 2014 at 11:20 am #23321
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?April 10, 2014 at 9:13 pm #23319
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.April 10, 2014 at 4:19 pm #23318
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.April 10, 2014 at 1:46 pm #23315
Concrete is made of things dug out of the land. There is not enough land to make enough concrete to move all of humanity to the oceans. And you keep giving dreams of 100 years or more from now, i keep asking about today or tomorrow. Some 80% of Australia is unpopulated, and there’s places in the usa you can drive for an hour and not see anyone. There’s no land shortage. Strangely, there’s some shortage of international ocean, there’s only two small spots in the Gulf Of Mexico that are not in usa, Mexican, or Cuban EEZ. And i can imagine the ocean floor will soon be off limits to everyone.
Yet when i ask you practical questions of how one makes the proper mix of cement, or joining floating cement parts, or any hydrodynamic question about such massive amounts of floating concrete, or legal questions a seastead will face, you have no answers.
I read two recent reports yesterday about hurricanes in the GOM, one from the usa military and one for oil platforms in the GOM, and both mentioned common 16m/50ft waves, and peaks of 28m/90ft. Since those were previously considered 500yr or 1000yr events, but they have occured several times in the GOM since 1995, i’d damn sure like to know what the dynamic water pressures are on various sizes and shapes. One report noted oil pipelines buried over 6ft in the ocean floor were scoured up and moved 2 miles (i have mentioned this before), tells me the bottom on the continenetal shelf, or at water depts shallower than 60m/200ft are too unstable and unsafe to put your submerged or floating concrete spheres. Even if the sphere survives, the inhabitants probably will not.April 9, 2014 at 9:38 am #23311
Fine, Ellmer, WHAT BUSINESS will be on those floating concrete bubbles?