Maximum depth | tubular concrete structures | hydrostatic load | spheres | oceanic business alliance

(joequirk) #14

Here’s why I struggle with the forums. The few members who argue are uncivil. I agree it makes us look bad to investors. Each member who argues also contributes significant value to our knowledge of seasteading. What each arguer has in common is that they are passionate about seasteading and motivated to make it happen. I want those people on our team.

How to capture the value of the arguers contributions without it being sabotaged by the bickering? As a writer of controversial books and essays, I learned there’s only one way: Ignore. It’s easy to scan over rants and irrelevancies and go straight to the contributions I find valuable. It’s also easy to trust the rest of the community is doing the same. Nobody is reading the accusations and counter-accusations except the accusers. People are good at figuring out which contributors they want to ignore. Well over 350 people have contributed to these forums without arguing.

Here’s why it matters: The bickering provides ammunition for the enemies of seasteading. It discourages investors, who know businesses are built on stable relationships and cooperative teams.

Why aren’t we living on seasteads right now? I blame a series of Great Seasteading Setbacks caused by public bickering.

Here’s one: The very day I became enthralled with seasteading at the conference in 2012, a journalist arrived with an agenda. He ignored 2 days of talks about nautical engineering, algae farms, blue jobs, and legal precedents for floating cities. Any discussion of startup countries will involve Singapore. Any discussion of Singapore will cause somebody to mention public caning. None of this was discussed during the conference. Two people among 200 attendees, neither of whom any of us knew, started an argument during the social gathering after the conference. They both became very engaged with proving the other one wrong. Virtually everybody ignored them.

A journalist stood by and took copious notes. His article opened with their quotes about public caning. For months we had to answer questions about why seasteaders support public beatings. Any investor who googled “seasteading” spotted an article quoting statements about caning. You have no idea how much PR work we had to do to push that message off the first page of our google search.

I’m waiting for that journalist to discover these forum arguments. He is actively searching. He showed up at our last public event and asked me questions. These forums contain a goldmine for him.

Somebody annoying you? Don’t engage. Ignore. Trust that the rest of the forum community is ignoring them too. The more you ignore, the more productive these conversations will be.

Contributors, I’m grateful for your formidable research and mindbending creativity, and I’m looking forward to seeing more.

Galt's Gulch is on the oceans | oceanic business alliance
Breakaway Civilization | Seasteading | Ocean Colonization | Advanced Oceanic Cities | Atlantis | Enlightenment | Oceanic Business Alliance | next big thing in business
Breakaway Civilization | Seasteading | Ocean Colonization | Advanced Oceanic Cities | Atlantis | Enlightenment | Oceanic Business Alliance | next big thing in business
Oceanic Real estate | global networking hubs | Extraterritorialized | oceanic business alliance
Oceanic Real estate | global networking hubs | Extraterritorialized | oceanic business alliance
Oceanic Real estate | global networking hubs | Extraterritorialized | oceanic business alliance
Offshore aquaculture | realistic projects | big business | seafood | ocean colonization | ocean ranching | oceanic investment | world food security | oceanic business alliance
Oceanic Real estate | global networking hubs | Extraterritorialized | oceanic business alliance
Breakaway Civilization | Seasteading | Ocean Colonization | Advanced Oceanic Cities | Atlantis | Enlightenment | Oceanic Business Alliance | next big thing in business
Real Estate Paradigm Shift | oceanic business alliance | oceanic real estate | floating real estate |
Picture the Ramform | get invested | get started | oceanic business alliance
Real Estate Paradigm Shift | oceanic business alliance | oceanic real estate | floating real estate |
Oceanic Real estate | global networking hubs | Extraterritorialized | oceanic business alliance
Galt's Gulch is on the oceans | oceanic business alliance
Picture the Ramform | get invested | get started | oceanic business alliance
Real Estate Paradigm Shift | oceanic business alliance | oceanic real estate | floating real estate |

May I add, it’s also a dichotomy? The artistry tries to depict, but the limits of technology are also part of the struggle. Without respecting technology, then the artistry is merely that. However, when the 2 can come together, and it all falls into place, then the dischord becomes a new melody.

Quite often, I find, my best inspirations and motivations come with strong emotion. Often, in this forum, moments of clarity seem to be preceded by such struggles.

Indirectly, I owe several of my concepts to the push and pull, especially between Wilfried Ellmer and myself. I’ve worked hard on both FLIP and Ramform design concepts. As such, I’m probably as well informed of what they are, as anyone that hasn’t been aboard them can be. Because of that, I’ve emailed with an engineer at PGS (Ramform fleet owners), and even the Captain of the FLIP.

In order for anything to get done, though, the reality of the structural limitations has to be respected, along with attention to detail.

Now, put it into perspective of someone willing to toss some years of my life and most of my income into building one dream, to last the rest of my life, and stand the testament of time as my singular achievement, I know the requirements I face, to build a safe, livable, durable structure, and I fully intend to do so.

If, on the otherhand, I was looking to gain financing to build, then artwork, specs and plans will have to be informed and detailed by the structural concerns. I can’t very well go in and say I want to build a ferrocement barge hull, then go back as say I misspoke, the hull has to be 10 times thicker, and costs 8 times more than you already gave me…

Without the struggle here, I wouldn’t HAVE the inspiration, or sufficient knowledge, that gives me the details to build.

Artwork is fine and dandy, but it’s a long way from a drawing to a fleshed-out concept, and only a tad further to an engineered design. What do we want? How can we build it? What do we need to do it? Where will we build it? Where will we put it?

(Wilfried Ellmer) #16

How can we encourage them to contribute their ideas further and not be shued away along the investors by the few agressive elements that aim to shu away everything that is not “their way”… their only way …

Typical phrases:

This is not a seastead

Why this will fail

You are going down the wrong road

We should develop a culture where this kind of “contributions” are tuned back.

(Bart Kemper) #17

I’m not clear – why is dissent or skepticism a negative contribution. I agree groundless skepticism is of little value, just as groundless optimism is of little value. Both are likely to be destructive.

This is an engineering discussion. Engineers ask question in a manner than layman think are “arguments”. They are not. We test each other’s assumptions, methods, and sources. If one becomes emotionally involved and has bad feelings over the process typical of engineering, it does not advance the process.


Well said. I wish I had the eloquence to put it so succinctly. Would have helped with the original forum, which fell due to the bickering, rather than build on available methodology and documentation.

Jeff Frusha

(Bart Kemper) #19

This is a fairly comprehensive list of the research on the subject. Most of it is decades old.

(Bart Kemper) #20

Multiple design data sources should be used. No single design source should be used in novel development, particularly if the design is not in widespread use to reflect a solid body of known usage. Test beats theory, and full scale usage beats testing in terms of a basis for data. Engineering is most reliable when the data from full scale usage is studied and fed back into the field of practice.

Related to that, we need to look beyond simply concrete. Acrylics are used for viewports, and there will be a need for a visual connection. For example, one need for a viewport is visual communication in the event of a power-out failure or a comms failure.

Concrete is porous. It’s just a question of rates. Steel reinforcement does interact with the seawater. The use of advanced techniques such as FEA and CFD is helpful, but it is only as good as the data to apply and the knowledge of the user to establish boundary conditions and to interpret the results.


Most of those are available for free, just a matter of digging. I’ve already used a section from it, to refute the invalid claim for 10 cm of reinforced concrete, as well as giving some of the specs for the Troll A platform, indicating meter+ thickness for the legs, to withstand the 303 meters depth, being to most current model in use, with some of the best engineering available.

My whole point was that even his resource says 4 inches of reinforced concrete will not perform as he has claimed, and that such nonsense can and will get people killed, when they take it as an authoritative stance, and attempt to do something using misrepresented figures as ‘gospel’.

However, the difference is also in the application. His experience and documentation has shown 10cm/4in of reinforced concrete will withstand the depth, but only as a pressurized hull, not an open-top cylinder or spherical structure, at atmospheric pressures, which the artwork indicates.

I am trying to gather supplies to further experiment and develop a Geopolymer formula, that I intend to use in an application resembling Ferrocement, but utilizing composite Basalt reinforcement (preferably FRTP), which will dispose of the corrosion of the iron, and resultant spalling, altogether, and increase the structural strength, for the same dimensional specifications. Basalt Composite reinforcement is roughly triple the strength of standard reinforcement, doesn’t corrode, and should last considerably longer than reinforced concrete.

(Bart Kemper) #22

That basalt sounds good in terms of pure tension, but it is brittle. My concern from my experience is that such a material would be subject to shock loading from storms … the striking of a drum, if you will. Still, the first thing we need is actual loads and stresses, then go through the what ifs. That would be where good FEA comes in. “Striking the drum” does not apply to fully submerged and fixed items as much, but it does for anything topsides.

It’s easy to talk philosophy. The need is to crunch actual numbers and talk about what is or is not feasible based on specific physics.


Basalt fiber is not any more brittle that glass fiber. I’ve seen video of coils being unwound for use. My reason for FRTP is the heat and reshape the reinforcement, in order to set the internal tensions, where they tend to return to the desired shape of the hull, rather than having the spring-tension of all that rebar trying to pull it apart, during construction, and needing to restrain it until the cementation has set. However, that may require having it made to order, at which point FRTP Fiberglass rebar is already available.

Pretensioning the rebar is mainly a matter of having straight-runs to use. For columns, that will be a vertical alignment, and within decks.

Basalt rebar is in use, especially in new highway construction, here in the US, but has been used in the former Soviet Union since WW II. According to @NickGri, there are some basalt reinforced cement hulls, as well.

Jeff Frusha

(Nick Gencarelle) #24

Basalt is not so brittle especially when locked into concrete pour. If your concrete got so bent that the reinforcement popped you’d be in bigger trouble than any rebar would help. Besides I would suggest rebar as only the main superstructure frames and two or more layers of mesh on angle in the concrete with chopped fibers as well.
Also people always test pullout of rebar by putting straight rods in a beam. I would say putting them in an S-shape or zig zag would prevent any pullout from ever happening as the opposing forces of the concrete would deny any movement really.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #25

There is no such thing like a "technical issue" for the use of basalt (and other fiber components) as rebar replacement in concrete. There is no “ongoing discussion” in the engineering world about the topic either. (all necessary studies are made, read and understood by all knowledgeable engineers)

The only reason why it is not used on large overwhelming scale is “coding compliance” (restricted to specialty codes) and “unfamiliarity of many workers” with the material what can cause “administrative complication”.

To get fast progress on concrete composite engineering we need the “code free space of a seastead” to get it done. Coded ambients are rigged to exclude and hinder - new things which are “not code conform” by default… even if they are technologically better. That is what seasteading is all about - get out of redtaping and interference hell - and “achieve freedom on many levels”......

One of the DIFFERENCES between a seastead and the land city a mile away could be that in the seastead basalt rebar is standard building code instead of "specialty code" ( as it is in the land city ). So it is not primarily about things like weed smoking or gambling - it is about "freedom of coding" and "openess of mind" on many leves that converts to a better real estate offer and a competitive edge in general. The [oceanic business alliance]( is targeting this competitive edge with [3 dozend business proposals](
[Tom W.Bell]( sustains in his interview with Joe Quirk (minute 13 of the interview) that open mindedness and free choice of codes is the key ingredient to prosperity and rapid progress.

Building Barges Using Advanced Concrete Methods?
Let's talk about concrete submarines
Breakaway Civilization | Seasteading | Ocean Colonization | Advanced Oceanic Cities | Atlantis | Enlightenment | Oceanic Business Alliance | next big thing in business

Wrong answer:
Basalt Rebar ACI Codes

To be allowed by your local building inspector department to use basalt rebar reference the various ACI codes that apply. Here is the statement that applies to Basalt rebar…

Basalt FRP Rebar is used as per ACI 440.1R-06. The construction use is dictated by code 440.6-08. It is specified by 440.5-08 and tested according to ASTM D7205 and several other test methods. ASTM testing of Basalt FRP rebar shows that Basalt FRP rebar easily meets the performance requirements of ACI 440.6-08.

Also applicable to Basalt rebar is ACI 440R-07 Report on Fiber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. The use of Basalt rebar came along after ACI 440.6-08 was published so the Basalt version of FRP was not specifically called out in that document. However, ACI 440R-07 (a later document) does specifically call out Basalt rebar as an FRP rebar. It says “Fibers commonly used to make FRP bars are glass, carbon, and aramid. Recently, continuous Basalt fibers have become commercially available as an alternative to glass fibers.” It talks about Basalt FRP rebar all through the document and includes it in its various tables, but the key point is that it is classed as FRP.

Basalt FRP rebar is approved as natural fiberglass, meeting the certification specifications of ACI 440.6-08 and signed off as fiberglass FRP rebar. In doing so, the job will simply be overbuilt because the physicals of Basalt rebar are higher than fiberglass, falling between fiberglass and carbon fiber.

Basalt rebar can be placed to meet code requirements by using the calculations and installation guidelines for fiberglass reinforcement of concrete as defined in ACI 440.6-08.

Recommendations for maximum deflection and shear of concrete elements reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) rebar’s are presented in ACI 440.1R-06 (2006) “Guide for the Design and Construction of Structural Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars”.

Jeff Frusha

(Alexei) #27

No Joe, thats not all.
It’s not a matter of finding the information that is already here, but also about new information and new people who could join the crowd and end up never doing it.
The hostility over here is something that can make usefull people stay away and not contribute to anything.
Take for example this thread
All i said was
’Elmer, i belive you’d get a better feedback if you explain your ideas with your own words, instead of just throw a bunch of spam to other sites’
And look at the answer given.
I’m pretty sure many lurkers over here fells the same.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #28

@NickGri, Nick one of the things a seastead could deliver is a masonery engineering school where people learn to work with unusual concrete composite ingredients like basalt, carbon fibers, aramid, glassfiber, and produce results that outperform “standard engineering” several times.
A glimps what could be done better is given by the “concrete canoe competition”…

Building Barges Using Advanced Concrete Methods?
(Nick Gencarelle) #29

Hi yes,

Personally I think basalt is a better material than carbon or aramids or glass fibers for a few reasons-number one being costs. Carbon fiber although strong, conducts electricity, has no elastic modulus and is shattered on impact. Aramids are very expensive. Glass has less strength, less flexural modulus, degrades in an alkaline environment over time and when wet soaks up water. Basalt does not soak water as badly but then dries out as well. Basalt does not harbor bacteria or microbial growth, is more easily recycled, inert and non-respirable (still use masks of course), UV immune and handles chemicals and acids much better and is a much better electrical insulator and thermal insulator than glass fibers. Basalt expands and contracts (being a rock) at the same rate as concrete-this is huge.

(Nick Gencarelle) #30

New ultra high strength concretes are becoming available (and we have distribution rights) that are 4-5 or more times more tensile and compressive and flex strength than regular Portland cement. They do NOT leach water which in my opinion is job ONE-keep the water out and you will have many less problems. Using these cements with basalt is beyond anything seen normally today. I would love to make some boats, barges, docks, using these in combo.

(Wilfried Ellmer) #31

@NickGri, there are two things you said in your above posts that are ENORMOUSLY IMPORTANT

  1. This is HUGE
  2. 4-5 times compressive strength

I will dig in on that a bit soon.

Having a similar business plan for ocean colonization as spacex has for space colonization (mars colony)…

The oceanic business alliance is now at the end of phase1

Modular Extension | Connectors | Cellular expansion | Building Technology
(Wilfried Ellmer) #32

@NickGri - the first point leads us to the question “How big is the oceanic real estate market” - what is a question we should probably investigate and talk under a different thread topic.

The second point (4-5 times compressive strength) opens the question which portion of the planetary hydrosphere is actually reachble and settleable with the technology at hand today.

The study in the beginning of the thread (H.H Haynes et alt.) indicates a maximum waterdepth of 1000m for “normal concrete” - now using those special materials we widen the horizon of possibilities to 4000-5000 meters. This means the average ocean depth of 4267 m comes in reach. What means we can can settle and colonize the planetary waterbody from surface to ocean bottom almost everywhere (except the ocean trenches which account for only a few percent). That is signifficant.

Building Barges Using Advanced Concrete Methods?
(system) closed #33

This topic was automatically closed 100 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.