Difference between revisions of "User talk:Vincecate/GeodesicVessel"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I like the idea, but i'm not sure why the top needs to be round as well, would it make it a lot stronger? A flat top area would create a lot of useful area when the sea is calm. [[User:Joep|Joep]] 21:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | I like the idea, but i'm not sure why the top needs to be round as well, would it make it a lot stronger? A flat top area would create a lot of useful area when the sea is calm. [[User:Joep|Joep]] 21:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : It could be reasonable. It is really like a round bottom boat at that point which could be good. [[User:Vincecate|Vincecate]] 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
What size is it expected to be ? If it is hit by a wave of wavelength roughly equal to its width, it risks capsizing and floating upside-down. It seems the ballhouse does not have this problem.--[[User:Jesrad|Jesrad]] 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC) | What size is it expected to be ? If it is hit by a wave of wavelength roughly equal to its width, it risks capsizing and floating upside-down. It seems the ballhouse does not have this problem.--[[User:Jesrad|Jesrad]] 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : I was thinking like 50 to 80 food diameter. Mostly the big waves are much wider than this and the small breaking waves would not be able to flip something this wide, but yes, there is a risk. But many small boats 50 feet long are like 10 feet wide, and so much easier to flip over than this. The bad side of the ballhouse is that it needs an external hanging ballast. This could limit where it can go or need to have a system to raise and lower the ballast which is added complexity/cost/failure-modes. The geodesic vessel is more like a normal ship really. I like that the ballhouse can be made smaller and still stable enough for the open ocean. If I was starting to really build something today it would be either a ballhouse or a tension circle. [[User:Vincecate|Vincecate]] 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 00:17, 21 September 2008
I like the idea, but i'm not sure why the top needs to be round as well, would it make it a lot stronger? A flat top area would create a lot of useful area when the sea is calm. Joep 21:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- It could be reasonable. It is really like a round bottom boat at that point which could be good. Vincecate 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
What size is it expected to be ? If it is hit by a wave of wavelength roughly equal to its width, it risks capsizing and floating upside-down. It seems the ballhouse does not have this problem.--Jesrad 18:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking like 50 to 80 food diameter. Mostly the big waves are much wider than this and the small breaking waves would not be able to flip something this wide, but yes, there is a risk. But many small boats 50 feet long are like 10 feet wide, and so much easier to flip over than this. The bad side of the ballhouse is that it needs an external hanging ballast. This could limit where it can go or need to have a system to raise and lower the ballast which is added complexity/cost/failure-modes. The geodesic vessel is more like a normal ship really. I like that the ballhouse can be made smaller and still stable enough for the open ocean. If I was starting to really build something today it would be either a ballhouse or a tension circle. Vincecate 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
