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.-- Vernon, May 05 2013 cars going under soil liquifaction http://www.caradvic...guzzling-road-hogs/ [not_morrison_rm, May 06 2013] Isn't it easier just to use springs? Or build a house that isn't a POS to begin with?-- DIYMatt, May 05 2013 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.-- not_morrison_rm, May 05 2013 The building would have to be much wider than it is tall.-- Alterother, May 05 2013 On these scales, I fear the Brazil nut effect would be more than a considerable problem.-- MaxwellBuchanan, May 05 2013 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, May 06 2013 [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.-- Vernon, May 06 2013 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..-- not_morrison_rm, May 06 2013 //Boats FLOAT//
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.-- MaxwellBuchanan, May 06 2013 //Boats FLOAT//
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.-- not_morrison_rm, May 06 2013 On the bright side they could be sailed in single file to hide our numbers.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, May 06 2013 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.-- Vernon, May 07 2013 Or kraken, who've taken a fancy to residential property.-- not_morrison_rm, May 07 2013 [+] you could also use a quakeproof buffering system as well, for both the belt and suspenders effect.-- FlyingToaster, May 07 2013 random, halfbakery