Engineering Q&A Text online

Alexia sent us a text document with answers to all 19 of the questions from the February YayBoo list. I have added it to the ClubStead engineering hub, to which I also added a table of contents, as it is getting quite long.

As a reminder, we also posted the webcast video. It is quite boring and the sound is not good, so I really can’t recommend trying to watch it. We will make some changes to the A/V setup next time.

I am very curious to feel what the wave motions of ClubStead would be like. I wonder if there are any motion simulation platforms available that we could hack and program? Not to buy (they would be expensive), but just to borrow. I found a list of manufacturers of such platforms, but we just need one we can borrow and hack. Anyone got one at their university?

Here’s a new YayBoo list for whenever we do our next Q&A session:


1 thought on “Engineering Q&A Text online”

  1. The comparison to a cruise ship is not fair.  The ClubStead will be burning lots of fuel to hold position and he has the cruise ship not even burning enough fuel to aim into the waves.   And really he did not answer the question.   I think a cruise ship at 500 feet with stabilizers would be more stable,  use less fuel than the ClubStead, and have about the same living area.   A cruise ship 500 feet long would not go up and down the 22.5 feet in 15 foot waves that ClubStead did.  With stabilizers it would not tip much at all side to side.  And a ship has the ability to run away from storms, so never even be in the big waves.

    The 22.5 feet Heavetotal is more up/down motion than a single-family WaterWalker would have in 15 foot waves.  The edges of the WaterWalker would go up and down about 15 feet (probably a bit less), but nobody would be living at the edges.   I also think the WaterWalker motion would be more regular and comfortable since it stays in phase with the wave and tip with it.  With the ClubStead moving on a different schedule than the waves, when the two add together the sum is less regular than the wave alone.   A single family WaterWalker is on the order of 1/100th the cost, so being more stable is impressive.

    The big draft of the spars is a disadvantage as far as fuel to move through the water or ability to go near land.  It does not seem to have an advantage in stability that people expected it to.   Most oil platforms are tied to the bottom and that removes the heave issue.   This “tension leg platform” trick is a huge win that ClubStead does not get.   I really think people should start with a small model in the ocean to see how well an idea works.

    Anyway, I don’t think ClubStead beat a boat yet.   I also don’t think modifications will really make it that much better.

    — Vince

Leave a Reply