I will signup for Wiki contributor access as you suggested.
As for the Intercon ATB coupler, this is more like what I’d expect for at least a marketing level spec sheet. Something akin to this should be defined here: https://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php?title=Connections
Among the specs, I see they have differentiated the product line into five models by displacement (in tons) and barge length (leverage). http://intercon.com/t-application-information.aspx. They have a USCG classification for their coupler (USCG NAVIC 2-81).
My first impression is that it appears to be a fairly elegant solution to coupling a tug to a barge, but I’m less clear on applicability to platforms, particularly those of the hex variety, but equally so for square or rectangular platforms. In the case of the tug to barge, the bow of the tug nests within a recess in the barge where an electric motor and/or electric motor and hydraulic pump engage a toothed ram into a toothed slot to effect engagement. While ramming the engagement surface into the sloped, toothed slot is a simple way to do this and the system can be scaled up or down as needed, I do wonder about a few aspects of the design.
Gears clattering against each other on ocean waves are bound to result in wear and run-out and I’m not sure if its the ram or the teeth in the slot that will wear out first. One would hope the ram is the softer of the two in the arrangement since it is easily the more accessible and easily replaced of the two sides of the mating surfaces. From the animation it would appear to allow movement in the vertical plane, but little to none laterally. For a powered application like this, that probably makes sense, since the goal is to maintain control of the flat bottomed barge without the tug chasing it all over the waterway.
Looking at the prodigious amount of steel these assemblies are requiring, and even though they are not stainless steel all the way through, there is a good amount of material, a lot of weight and require a significant amount of machining to produce each of them. Not a low-cost component by any stretch even if you DIY fabricated and adapted the design, scaled down significantly. As for combined system costs, for houseboat scale components, you’d probably want to find a way to forgo the electric drive motor and/or hydraulic rams and the ancillaries to drive these components. Using a manual rotating wheel to advance the ram on a lead screw would suffice, with a locking lever or tab at the end of travel to stop it from backing out the ram.
I was imaging something simpler, with the platforms fabricated to have recesses that would correspond to what was essentially a fairly massive C resilient clamp that would be bolted to one side (clamper) through the top deck and captured on the other (clampee) through a recess in the top of the platform’s deck and along a reinforced side. These could be full length for smaller, shallow draft platforms or in two sections, a top and a bottom to control the platforms and maintain a reasonable distance between them, with one clamp on top and one below on the underside in mirrored configuration.
In situations exceeding their static load (the point at which they deform) the clamp would collapse, but you’d end up with a bump stop that would cushion the collision in identical fashion to what is ordinarily achieved with old tires to prevent hull material to hull material contact between the platforms.
Between these clamps would be good place to have a flexible cable raceway with a passthrough on either side, the coupling interfaces attaching both sides via quick disconnect fittings, with stress relieved loops with several meters slack on either side of the coupling between the platform modules. Spring wraps would be used to prevent kinks as is often practiced with conventional boats today when docked.
Fabricating the hull structures for standardized, watertight passthroughs either through the upper side of the hulls or through the upper top edge of the module where it could be concealed under the clamp (to prevent damage to lines) solves the physical interconnect of power, fluid and data connections.
This arrangement of raceway-beneath-clamp would still allow access to inspect the cabling and hoses without decoupling the hull, albeit with some straining over the edge of the hull and above the water to access. The resilient nature of the mount would give them the ability to rebound into position after being deformed and prevent hull on hull impacts between platforms without relying on much more than a low-cost monolithic component, a glorified used tire that is clamped between platforms rather than merely strung alongside.
Decisions still need to be made about what to convey in the couplings, the size of the fittings and hoses and how grounding issues between modules will be resolved. An electrical spec would be needed to describe it adequately, much of which is already covered in standards already in existence that could be re-purposed and cross-referenced for the application.
Note I haven’t seen anything like what I’m describing, but the KISS principal should apply for reasons of manufacturing simplicity, avoidance of heavy, costly materials, etc. The simplest of the recyclable resilient materials for a large clamp-like coupling and raceway ladder would probably be urethane, or perhaps silicone rubber, though I think silicone has an edge on UV resistance unless the urethane were further compounded, rendering it less recyclable. It would give decades of reliable service and when spent, could be freshened up by judicious application of heat, a de-ox of the melt, and then back into a prepared mold. http://www.mearthane.com/about-urethane/urethane-vs-plastic/