h a l f b a k e r yI think, therefore I am thinking.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Sand has a density that is about 2 1/2 times that of
water,
and iron or steel has a density about 8 times that of
water.
We build ships out of steel, and they float in water just
fine. In theory, we could build a vessel out of steel that
would "float" in sand just fine, also.
So, imagine
a houseboat built at least partly from steel,
just for the strength of it. On the property where you
plan
to reside, which in this case we assume is located in an
EarthQuake-prone region, dig a big hole and fill it with
sand. Put the SandBoat House on top of the sand, of
course.
Now, when a quake happens, the sand will absorb much
of
the shock, and the houseboat will resist the rest.
The Bible, therefore, was wrong about building a house
on
sand --you just have to do it RIGHT.
cars going under soil liquifaction
http://www.caradvic...guzzling-road-hogs/
[not_morrison_rm, May 06 2013]
[link]
|
| |
Isn't it easier just to use springs? Or build a house that isn't a POS to begin with? |
|
| |
I asked why some of the buildings collapsed in the Kobe quake, and it's because when one corner ends up 4 feet away from where it used to be, and the whole building is being shaken up and down, it's going to fall down. So, this idea has merit because it's not fixed to the ground. |
|
| |
The building would have to be much wider than it is tall. |
|
| |
On these scales, I fear the Brazil nut effect would be
more than a considerable problem. |
|
| |
Erm, looking back on this, |
|
| |
1) couldn't you use a house boat on a pond? |
|
| |
2) earthquake soil liquefaction. It would be too ironic if the soil under the sand liquefied and your boat sank. Suggest large concrete pad. |
|
| |
[not morrison rm], apparently you didn't
understand
the Idea very well. Boats FLOAT. All you have to
do
is make sure the "draft" of this houseboat suffices
to
allow it to float in water as well as sand, and you
will
have no problem with liquefaction. |
|
| |
As for ponds, they can have much bigger waves in
a quake than a bed of sand. And because it takes
time for soil to liquefy in a quake, that, along with
the density of the material, prevents it from
having equivalent waves. |
|
| |
found some pics of cars nosediving towards the centre of the earth..whether a boat would have the same problem, I'm not so sure, especially if it went down pointy end first. see link, if you must. 2nd photo down, onwards.. |
|
| |
Yes they DO. On the downside and without the
shoutiness, the moat is going to need constant
topping up and the rose garden is going to need a
lot of work. |
|
| |
//Wouldn't work in the UK. We can't get no
liquefaction.// I think you must have mis-heard
the lyrics, [bigs]. Mr. Jagger was bemoaning the
lack of compact housing in west London; we can't
get no flat in Acton. |
|
| |
Shouty is ok, I read that bit with my fingers in my eyes. |
|
| |
They don't always float, I'm thinking of a parallel, or just two lines that go in vaguely the same direction...anyway I'm equating ground liquefaction to underwater gas eruptions lowering the density and vessels going under pronto. |
|
| |
According to my theory, the reason there aren't SandBoat Houses all over the place is because all the previous ones disappeared underground due to soil liquefaction. And Atlantis. And Woodhenge. |
|
| |
On the bright side they could be sailed in single file to hide our numbers. |
|
| |
While the addition of underground gas to a mix would indeed be serious, most liquefaction events don't involve that. Just plain ordinary groundwater from the water table, is the usual culprit in liquefaction events. |
|
| |
Or kraken, who've taken a fancy to residential property. |
|
| |
[+] you could also use a quakeproof buffering system as well, for both the belt and suspenders effect. |
|
| |