h a l f b a k e r yWe have a low common denominator: 2
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,
|
|
|
The main reason for not having catamaran ocean liners is physical scaling up of the bridging structure.
So to get around the forces, I propose a skeletal vertebrae type system of huge blocks of rubber and girders steel in a mesh network. The calculation of the simplest holding structure would have
to be done under evolutionary computation because of the complexity of possible ocean wave dynamics.
Under normal conditions the bridge would be under constant motion between the two liners. The internals would have to be made either flexible or inserted as to absorb motion changes. Surrealist artworks will make looking at the walls maybe disconcerting initially.
Hydraulically dynamic sections in the bridge could be used to pump energy in or out of the bridges motion for comfort or strength. Computation links would insure liner engine synchronicity .
If this sky/sea bridge did have a viewing platform then there would be green painted circles on the deck for the long-grande chairs. These are the few places that the computation showed are the most restful for sight seeing.
Thinking bigger
Large_20Scale_20Catamarans
Island catamarans that weren't possible [wjt, Oct 17 2014]
Radisson Diamond
http://castlesofthe...disson-diamond.html
SWATH catamaran - 345 passengers, 177 crew [FlyingToaster, Aug 14 2017]
The adhoc version of
http://youtu.be/d98u3jr47Fc
Architecturally design floating cities. [wjt, Dec 25 2017]
Stratolaunch
https://www.washing...-the-rocket-makers/
//this will be applied to aircraft// - normzone [spidermother, Jan 03 2018]
In Silico Freedom Ship
http://freedomship.com/
[bs0u0155, Jan 03 2018]
Buoyancy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy
An intrinsic property, not a learned behavior. [8th of 7, Jan 05 2018]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Of course, taken to it's logical conclusion, this will be applied to aircraft while they are building the interplanetary version. |
|
| |
true that, extrapolation and evolution is the path that the imaginative dextrous creatures can't escape. |
|
| |
Catamarans are normally rigid |
|
| |
What is the aim of this? Is it make a more stable
boat? Or to have a sort of flying deck? |
|
| |
A truely large oceanic metropolis liner. And if that fusion pans out, powered properly as well. |
|
| |
Scaling up a catamaran to ocean liner scale means a huge bridging structure. Ships worth. |
|
| |
With all those wave motions, at sail, standing in the middle of the bridging deck might be like standing on vibrating jello. |
|
| |
If the twin hulls were made from two converted nuclear submarines with narrow pylons welded on the top, a very large rigid structure could be supported. |
|
| |
Running cables through the pylons from one sub to another would allow one sub's reactor(s) to power both hulls, in case of any problems. |
|
| |
The catamaran could rise high out of the water when approaching shallows, and submerge again once in the open sea. |
|
| |
Sadly it would be necessary to decommission and remove vertically aligned missile launch tubes, as the superstructure would be in the way, but the torpedo systems could be retained for occasions when other vessels are foolish enough to dispute the right of way. |
|
| |
// SWATH meaning Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull. // |
|
| |
Oh. :( I expected it to be a Snow White and the Huntsman
catamaran. |
|
| |
[8th of 7] Just keep adding. One submarine to the bottom of
each oceanliner hull. Another , because it would be more
structurally sound, as the bridging section between
oceanliners. Three nuclear power plants. Now there's some
redundancy. |
|
| |
Eventually a new steel island, of indeterminate flag state,
will arise from it's components. |
|
| |
I think the problem of bridging structure can be got
around with some clever design. The main problem is that
a variety of compression, tension, twisting forces and the
tremendous moment arm lengths start to really test
materials at the scales proposed. Each hull is acting via a
single element which must resist all forces in all
directions, a bit like when they make a convertible out of
a car that was never designed to be one, it's all shake
bend and wobble. |
|
| |
The clever solution is to put the roof back on the car, or
in this case, add a second bridging element opposite the
first, in this case linking the bottom of the two hulls. Now
your structure is much more stable. A further
improvement would be some cross bracing, top of one
hull to the bottom of the other, front of one to the back
of the other etc. Perhaps the simplest way to achieve this
would be a series of bulkheads joining the top and bottom
bridging structures with the two hulls, making the space
between the hulls a series of segmented box sections,
this is a very efficient structural design. |
|
| |
There are some disadvantages, the catamaran will have a
much larger cross-sectional area interacting with the
water flow, but several advantages reveal themselves
also: The catamaran will now have at least 3x the
internal volume and displacement, and the surface area
of the inside of the catamaran hulls will no longer
contribute to the shear friction. In fact by filling in the
middle bit the total volume/surface ratio makes the
whole system much more efficient. All that remains is to
put some nicely shaped sections on the front and back
and you have a stable, tough efficient if much bigger
ship. |
|
| |
If you want to keep to the original volume, you could get
similar gains by simply moving the two hulls together and
eliminating the bridging structure entirely. |
|
| |
Thanks. There's no real limit to ship size/shape, as long as the maximum bounancy limit is safely keep within, right ?. |
|
| |
In my mind, if a really really large ship is to be built, there's a point where starting from scratch is less efficient than using what has already been built. |
|
| |
The jury's probably still out on that one. |
|
| |
well, the vaporware project named the Freedom Ship was
proposed <link> to be constructed out of a bunch of large
barges as part of a modular construction. A lot of that was
possibly cost, you get good value with mass produced stuff,
but also you need somewhere to build large things.
Sometimes there aren't big enough places. |
|
| |
Yes, but unless you are a good swimmer anything over six feet or so and it's all the same. |
|
| |
Learning to float well, may help. |
|
| |
Catamaran liners are a bad idea - boatyards in Catamara are known to cut corners. |
|
| |
Floating is a passive thing. |
|
| |
Learning is an active thing. |
|
| |
Many objects float without having "learned" to do so; pieces of wood, plastic ducks, decomposing dead sheep, Jeremy Corbyn, can all demonstrate positive buoyancy in water without any evidence whatsoever of any innate intelligence, or the ability to learn. |
|
| |
We dispute most forcefully* that buoyancy is a learned behaviour. |
|
| |
*As in "Don't make us come over there ...." |
|
| |
[8th] No research into floating then, that would be learning. Ah, Jeremy Corbyn with magnetic bling. |
|
| |
Buoyancy is an observed and documented phenomenon. <link> |
|
| |
It is unclear how any further investigation can add to understanding of the effect. |
|
| |
"Learning about floating" is quite distinct and different. |
|
| |
Not when it's subjective. |
|
| |
I am drowning, say, I quickly better learn to float, whether from holding that absorbent fluffy toy or those sealed hollow lead balls. |
|
| |
Maybe, a charged tin foil hat. |
|
| |
[Max] If we are talking landlocked. A river catamaran oceanliner would make intriguing city, bridge. |
|
| |