Forum Replies Created
December 12, 2011 at 11:20 am #16772
Internal combustion engines are like 30% efficient. Electrolysis is right there as well. You might recover <10% of the energy you invested in breaking the hydrogen bonds.
Entropy means shit goes to it’s lowest potential energy. That’s why there’s so much fucking water on this planet. A supernova and a red dwarf had a 3 way and water was the result.
Water is the corpse of energy, not a fuel source.
Don’t take my word for it, convert a gas generator to hydrogen, start with a volume of hydrogen gas and use the generator to make more. Put a jimmy hat over a mason jar and plump the intake and exhaust to the hydrogen bubble. Give it some DC go juice and watch in amazement as your hydrogen fuel get’s consumed making water and heat.December 12, 2011 at 11:12 am #16771
I most certainly can blame them. How many people on these forums have freely shared thoughts, research, ideas, etc? I’ve spent countless hours doing research on long-distance internet options. Do I just sit on all that, rub my hands together, and cackle with greed? Of course not, I posted all my thoughts and research on the Internet thread. Same goes for all the seamount research I did. Blueseed wants to get the PR boost from TSI, make use of the engineering research, but doesn’t want to pass on any of their research to the community? Poor form, lads. Poor form.ellmer wrote:
It is obvious that they can not have hammered it out in all details in this project phase
Which is stupid. How do you even move forward on a project like this unless you have all the details hammered out? There are two critical components of the Blueseed project: the high-speed internet link and the visa/legal aspect. Everything else (power, mooring, food, ship design, etc) is off-the-shelf stuff that needs money but no technical or engineering leaps. How you can even talk to investors about something like Blueseed before you have the data link and visa/immigration issues worked out is beyond me.
I mean, that’s like me asking investors for several hundred thousand dollars to open a fast food restaurant without telling them where I’ll be building. It’s pretty much a make-or-break project detail.
So, as I said before, either they have detailed plans on how to solve those two issues or they don’t. If they have them, and have shared them with investors but not the TSI community, then I want nothing more to do with them or TSI. If they don’t have them then they are irresponsible for seeking investors and doing all this PR media blitz stuff without even knowing if the entire idea is possible, and it will once again make the entire seasteading idea look bad.ellmer wrote:
Funds is the center of any real world seasteading project – not discussion – not engineering –
No, engineering is the critical aspect. While funding is, of course, incredibly important you will not get the funding without a solid engineering plan. If it is going to cost $1B to create a high-speed internet link 300nm from shore then you need to know that UP FRONT. It might even be impossible, at which point it’s useless to even look for funding. Legal aspects are almost as important as the engineering. If U.S. officials refuse to let people come-and-go easily to-and-from Blueseed then it doesn’t matter if they have $10M or $50M or $100M in funding…the entire idea won’t work.
You design, then you seek funding. Not the other way around…
Are you familiar with this project?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.A.T.M.A.N.
Solar or wave seem like the best way to make the repeaters self sustaining.
Respect for putting time and energy in to the ocean internet issue. It’s important to me as well.October 30, 2011 at 4:01 pm #16048chadsims wrote:
There is much we can learn about parenting from mammals, and can learn about large communities from swarming organisms like bee’s and ants.
We’ve tried making societies like Ants and Bees, with a ‘queen’ singular person in charge. The problem is that Humans are only SIMI-social creatures. We’re not really pack animals, and neither are we solitary, though some humans are examples of both. I’m more solitary for instance and others happen to be more pack driven… Like you’re average Teenage Girl.
So, long story short to take a note from either a pack animal or a swarm animal, has been done and has always failed. Humans can not work ‘for the greater good’. But niether can a society work that doesn’t take greater good into effect at all like anarchism. We’re to varried, some people, and cultures, like Russia, actually are happy to be controlled, but even then, the entire populous doesn’t fall into that discription only large potion of it. (I think about 60% of russians would be happy with a ‘queen bee’ designed society. Americans for the counter tend to be the opposite, the solo-oriented people. (though the ‘social’ movements have been pushing ‘entitlment’ and creating a subculture of america that is enslaved to the government))
Long story short. humans are to varried for any type of government designed off of the animal kingdom. (Fromrule of the strongest for wolves, to everyone working for the greater good under one ruler)
‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown
I think this is pretty insightful, no “one size fits all” solution seems possible(other than unlimited food, water, electricity, and sex robots). Maybe if robots are showering us in material wealth and there’s no competition for sexual partners we’ll all mellow out.
In the mean time, most goals including the mission statement of this site seem dedicated to providing enough diversity of options that “don’t be a douche-bag” standards of morality are easily achievable for everyone under all definitions of “acting like a douche-bag”.October 29, 2011 at 7:03 pm #16034elspru wrote:
In engineering, when you depart too far from a working solution and the result is a broken system, you can go back to the last known working state and see if it still works(god help you if it doesn’t) or you can remove one new addition at a time until you return to a working state. Unfortunately for us humans, I don’t know if there’s an example of a “working state” in all of human history. Discontent with the status quo is the driving force behind our continued progress. I wish luck to anyone trying to find consensus on a period in the past that constitutes a “working state”.
and recent example would be 1950′s United States where most people were working in the state.
However I’d say that a “working state” is far from ideal, I’d say a functioning ecosystem is much better.
We have plenty of examples of functioning ecosystems, islands, continents, oceans, lakes, aquariums, terrariums. There is much we can learn about parenting from mammals, and can learn about large communities from swarming organisms like bee’s and ants.
We with You are a Network, our goal to become technologically-enabled reproducible family communities. http://weyounet.info
That’s the whole point though. What is “working”? What about an ecosystem makes it “functioning”? Equilibrium/stability results in stagnation and eventual collapse. Your competition is constantly evolving.
It’s a question of goals. What exactly is it you are trying to get from the “system”? Not everyone can agree on what the purpose of the system should be, so how can they hope to accomplish a purpose?
Is tribalism and segregation the answer? Increased mobility solves the geographic problems of those issues, but mobility defies efficiency.
Is independence the answer? I used to think so, but “divided we fall”. The most agile competitive 1% seem to effectively accumulate all of the commodities/resources when everyone is an equally independent island.
Is interdependence the answer? I don’t think so. Free trade and globalization have eliminated large wars of nations in favor of smaller military enforcements of the NWO agenda. Meanwhile social mobility and the wealth gap get undeniably increasingly regressive.
The populous as a whole is retarded and I’m not sure “human dignity” is significant justification to try to save them from themselves. The flip side of that coin is that the minority of plutocrats as a whole seem to be evil, if not by intention then through misplaced ideological fallout.
Everyone thinks they’re “self-made” and entitled to all the fruits of their labor, yet they rarely appreciate the externalities their empire was built upon or the extent of the subsidies they received while building it.
How do you eliminate externalities without stifling progress or establishing authoritarian enforcement infrastructure? The “free-rider problem” may be a justification for imposing projected needs on to others, but how will we prevent an asteroid from destroying civilization? By holding hands & singing Kumbaya?
As far as I can tell, the medicine is worse than the disease regarding the hazards of independance/libertarianism. To me, this looks like cheap concrete/acrylic/polycarbonate submarines(even if they can only dive to 30m(100ft).
I am curious what this collection of captain nemo’s plans to do about pollution of the ocean, space junk, and asteroids though.October 29, 2011 at 5:35 pm #16031
In engineering, when you depart too far from a working solution and the result is a broken system, you can go back to the last known working state and see if it still works(god help you if it doesn’t) or you can remove one new addition at a time until you return to a working state.
Unfortunately for us humans, I don’t know if there’s an example of a “working state” in all of human history. Discontent with the status quo is the driving force behind our continued progress.
I wish luck to anyone trying to find consensus on a period in the past that constitutes a “working state”.October 29, 2011 at 3:45 pm #16030chadsims wrote:
I’d suggest that a barter type deal be set up for the community, trade goods and services to each other, and gold and silver be used for land transsactions.
Or if the group is small enough, just help each other out when needed. Put all the gold and silver into a group account, some sort of secured facility. (Lock box)
‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown
Tungsten and lead are two materials which are both impossible to counterfeit. They are the least valuable materials of their density making it easy to verify their authenticity.
Fishing weights are impractical as currency due to their low value/weight relationship.
For the same reason, they make acceptable small denominations.
Tungsten Carbide cutting inserts for machine tools on the other hand are very valuable, impossible to counterfeit, and could be easily traded “live” based on their “live” market price being available for any currency in existence.
There would be some danger of counterfeiting based on the spread between the price/gram of tungsten vs. the market price of inserts, but this is easily fixed by using used inserts which are of no use to anyone beyond their value as a commodity and therefore the quality of sintering is irrelevant.
Making this the currency standard would encourage economic growth based on “value added” production of goods. The unit of exchange would have a higher value on the seastead than the recycling infrastructure price on-shore.
This would mean that a benefit of operating a machine shop on the seastead would be the recycling infrastructure would pay better off-shore. Employees could be paid in used inserts making the cost of labor almost free.
New inserts would have a premium value because of the “here now” price of the logistics of having new tooling delivered to the seastead. This premium would be comparable to numismatics value of collectible coins.
Eventually, someone would make the investment and begin recycling them off-shore as an additional benefit of seasteading: pollution.
Demand would be at a premium, the value would be higher based on location, and a cottage industry of arbitrage would exist where money could be made on the difference in value between new & used carbide.
The best perk lies in that the issue of expansion of capital solves itself. The market price of carbide is inherently below the cost of goods(concessions for alternative manufacturing processes). As the economy expands, the production of used carbide increases to meet the demands of the growing economy. As the demand for capital increases, the arbitrage of carbide logistics supports this demand by increasing carbide imports. It would be a market controlled currency with the upside potential of eventual exports of new carbide vs. imports of used carbide.
This would fix the “national debt”/”trade deficit” at a very good ratio inspiring a strong currency-> strong wages-> strong economic growth.
GDP vs Imports would have EXTREME pressure to stay deficit free.October 29, 2011 at 3:22 pm #16029chadsims wrote:
Now I’ve got an interesting proposition…
Indentured Survitude. Someone owes X debt to someone else. Where their sea stead came from they where allowed to get Indentured servitude to get their debt repaid. That seastead shows up at your sea steading group… What do you do? The man who is doing the labor is paying back a debt that he/she brought down on themselves for some reason, it isn’t slavery but close.
Me, I would consider Indentured survitude in the event a criminal causes harm to a family, to repay it, (sort of like comunity service) the criminal would have to spend an hour a day working for that family for a court apointed amount of time. But outright pure indentured survitude? I’m not sure what I would want done. I’d probably let it slide IF the indentured party can’t proved he was cheated, his work isn’t getting fair value (So as to keep him from paying off his debts) or he wasn’t informed of the possibilty that he might end up indentured if he failed to furfil the bargain.
What do you think SeaSteaders?
‘Lead, Follow, or get out of my way.’ -Unknown
Just fly the US Flag. Indentured Servitude is alive and well in the student loan industry.
But in all seriousness, this is just one more example of how there is a semantics issue causing confusion. Houseboats would do well to avoid the idea of debt entirely. In a Chomsky-typical anarchy, there wouldn’t be a structure of enforcement other than “debt collection”.
In the USA, “indentured servitude” is an antiquated model in light of the strangle-hold the IRS has put on employment.
Engaging in “commerce” in the United States places you in the jurisdiction of the US Courts. Under this jurisdiction(Any job with a W-4) court orders for wage garnishment enforcing judgements(debts+ successful lawsuit) are highly effective.
Indentured servitude is the equivalent of strapping someone to a table to draw blood to make sausage. You’re better off if you can “tag” the victim with a “tick” which draws blood as they travel and feed themselves. All the benefits of slavery but with fewer externalities. The victim is rarely even aware of the fence keeping them inside the “garden of eden”. Also, as a result of their ignorance and fear of the unknown, they would frequently rather wear the judicial phlebot-omatic than leave in any case.
This would be even easier on an oil rig business park because the fence would be more difficult to escape without a land-bridge, and the means of enforcement and control would be easier to execute(revoke the lease of any business which is caught hiring a “fugitive” without collecting garnishments).
Frankly, the more I think about “oil stead business parks”, the more they seem like a nightmarish plutocrats wet dream. The means of control which enable political machines would be easier to implement than ever, and thousands of years of labor protection precedent would be wiped clean allowing all the “old tricks” to make a comeback like they were new again. I would encourage all “employees” of such a floating casino/brothel to unionize immediately and kill that baby in the cradle. Unfortunately, Mexican refugees are particularly vulnerable due to their shitty options and would likely topple easily in the face of “Scabs” and union-busting practices.
Even supposing the 501(c)3 landlord buffers this inevitability, it would be very difficult for the board of directors/trustees W/E from being infiltrated/influenced by business interests in an echo chamber of money.
The image that comes to my mind is the fall of Caesar and the rise of Mark Antony.October 17, 2011 at 3:59 am #15864ellmer wrote:
it is probably the most suitable idea for a modular island design – the grid itself does not need to be rigid too….the building could have a loose fit in the building lot… the connectors could be like zephyrheart suggested instead of walkways on the surface make submarine tunnels that can be used in any seastate they would work like the roots of the waterlilly – give some flexibility to avoid excessive stress between islands.
Carbon Dioxide freezes at normal temperatures @ 5ATM depth. Perfect structural material. Coat a 5ATM pressure housing in enough CO2 and you can take it as deep as you want.October 17, 2011 at 3:46 am #15863
More than I’ve done. I disagree with many of your design decisions but good worksmanship.October 17, 2011 at 3:40 am #15862
If it were a meritocracy social mobility would be better than is the present case.
We’re living under crony-capitalism. This will be true as long as the banks are loaning the government it’s own money for a profit.
The current list of demands is a sweat-heart deal. Eric Holder should step up to the plate and start sacrificing executive class goats before “the people” start holding their own kangaroo courts.October 3, 2011 at 12:26 am #15725SimianAngel wrote:
Tusavision, have you heard of the SpaceShaft concept? As i understand, it would be a buoyant tower rising above the atmosphere. They say it would cost around 10 to 20 million euros to get up and running, but once the production infrastructure is in place they could be built for very little.
left my wallet on Enceladus.
10-20 million euros isn’t that expensive for a big engineering project.
That said, I cannot imagine it being financed privately and the public has no patience for innovative/untested government projects right now.
The use of He vs. H is distasteful to me, although a political necessity.
All considered, cool concept and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I’ll be watching it.
My endorsement is never especially helpful so I’ll restrain myself from admitting which space project I’m betting on.October 2, 2011 at 7:19 pm #15720
If you want to go to space, build a seastead that can survive 20 meters depth @ 0 degrees C for 1 month & make it lightweight enough that you can lift it to 50 km for less than $20,000 worth of lifting gas & materials.
Those are the design specs for a “missing link” seastead which would represent a transition from sea to space.October 2, 2011 at 5:06 pm #15719Mad wrote:
Blue seed is a boat….
“Artificial Islands” require some kind of solid connection to the ground.
large boats, and floating rafts are different.
I think you will find Uncle Sam, and therefore the UN, think differently. Besides, even if the terms are not defined elsewhere in UNCLOS, that means they are up for interpretation by the enforcing bodies, which means that those in control of said EEZs are the ones who can decided what you are and are not.
Name one instance in human history where UNCLOS has been used against an artificial island.October 2, 2011 at 5:03 pm #15718
Reclaiming the Republic of Minerva would be the best means of achieving territory status.
The Island nations involved in that dispute are a complete joke.
At that point you can flag every seasteading structure in the world and make it self sustaining by charging registration taxes.September 28, 2011 at 7:26 am #15688
What about LNG? Does anyone have any experience with the geographic location of these deep water deposits and the process needed to refine it to a usable form? Is it just a matter of heating up sand from the deep ocean floor?