Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 18:48:57 GMT
I stumbled across this place that makes and deploys artificial reefs as a business: www.reefmaker.com/Interesting point they make: once you have permission to site a reef, and the reef materials have been inspected and approved, and you buy the material, and pay to have them towed out and placed per the approval, once on the bottom, you no longer own the reef material, the government (state or federal) owns it. You do not own the site, but you can fish or swim there along with anyone else who knows the location.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Dec 16, 2016 22:28:35 GMT
However,... If you established an artificial reef, along with a permanent mooring and exclusion zone around that mooring, you gain certain 'rights' to that space that others do not have, which the governments must enforce, umtil they revoke those permissions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2016 23:02:12 GMT
However,... If you established an artificial reef, along with a permanent mooring and exclusion zone around that mooring, you gain certain 'rights' to that space that others do not have, which the governments must enforce, umtil they revoke those permissions. Yes, regardless of any reef being there, if you have mooring or anchoring permissions, you can be there. Regarding the exclusion zone, it's related to collisions, and i am unclear if that applies to the actual anchor site on the bottom. If it did, then it could be argued that the exclusion applied to the entire circle of the anchorline sweep around the anchor, and you could grab miles of ocean surface this way. However, no one would know how long your anchor line is. If you deployed a mile of mooring line, you could be a mile east of the anchor and trying to run off someone a mile west of the anchor, and they'd be sure to ignore you, because with 2 miles between you there's little chance of collision. But i am pretty sure the exclusion zone for a floating anything is related to the anything's location on the surface. A zone on the surface that's relative to the bottom would be an installation, and be subject to rules and regs from everyone and his brother. There's huge amount of continental shelf 60 ft to 100 ft deep, 5 miles offshore, and it's highly unlikely that you will lay down 200x200 sq ft (an entire acre) of reef, anchor in the middle of it, deploy a proper amount of anchor line, and still be above your reef. It's highly likely that someone could be 800 ft away from you and be legally fishing above your reef. Unless you set up a high tension bouy line to the surface and had it declared a legal obstruction to commercial traffic on the official USCG nav maps. That would be wonderful for seasteading, but i cannot imagine the USCG making life difficult for commercial traffic and fishing boats for you to just be there.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Dec 17, 2016 1:44:39 GMT
That's the point of a permanent mooring. The USCG declares an obstruction, which is marked on navigation charts as a zone where passage is blocked.
As such, say a mooring and artificial reef cover a circle of 10 acres, and becomes occupied after the requisite 90 days (iirc). This designated hazard has specific exclussions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 2:59:01 GMT
Can the posts about mooring be moved to a thread about mooring?
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Dec 17, 2016 7:59:32 GMT
imho, the two may be necessarily linked subjects, for our purposes. Carefully designed, an artificial reef can control the waves within a zone, making for a 'better' permanent mooring.
Taking the Japanese Pufferfish 'mandala' as an example, with directed current flow, within the artificial structure could increase the effectiveness of underwater turbines, for electrical generation.
Granted, I think a bit further outside 'the box', but knowing that an artificial reef can also create a low wave zone, and that an artificial structure like the 'mandala' can direct water flow, creating a zone with smoother surface water for mooring, and making a directed flow for power generation could be a symbiotic/sympathetic process.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2016 18:43:42 GMT
Water flow is not pressure waves, and mandalas don't affect the water above them.
Unless the reef is as high as the water, and even then any islander can tell you of storm waves ignoring the reef (due to the surge height) and crashing on the island. I've witnessed them, and my first comment (as a youngster) was "what happened to the reef, where'd it go?". Other places are surely different, but there's something in Alabama about all ocean dumping <cough> i mean reefing, must be below 60ft deep to clear shipping above. If you intend to make it closer to the water surface, it may not be classified as a "reef".
The most link between "artificial reefs" and "mooring" is that you won't own the artificial reef under normal artificial reef laws, and there's laws against mooring in natural reefs or damaging them in any way. I would guess that since the artificial reef becomes gov property once in place, it's illegal to ever touch it again, including anchoring in it.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Dec 20, 2016 1:55:08 GMT
This is a bottom structure design currently being tested in wave tanks, to potentially 'cloak' offshore structures from waves... d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dn14829-1_600.jpgThis is a Japanese Pufferfish nest... static02.mediaite.com/themarysue/uploads//2012/09/Cirdlenight.jpgThis is a cloaking lattice ... www.researchgate.net/profile/Kadic_Muamer/publication/274567961/figure/fig3/AS:294823102828548@1447302713898/Fig-5-Measured-performance-of-a-lattice-transformation-cloak-Same-as-Fig-2-but.pngCaption Fig. 5. Measured performance of a lattice-transformation cloak. Same as Fig. 2, but measured directly on polymer structures fabricated by a 3D printer. Photographs of the structures are shown in the left-hand-side column. Again, the large distortions introduced by the hole in the homogeneous lattice are dramatically reduced in presence of the cloak, i.e., the average relative error with respect to p the ffiffiffi reference case, Δ , decreases from 714% to 26% in good agreement with theory shown in Fig. 2. Parameters are: r 1 = 30 mm, r 2 = 60 mm, L = 4 mm, a = 3 × L , w = 0.4 mm, and W = 1 mm. www.researchgate.net/publication/274567961_Mechanical_cloak_design_by_direct_lattice_transformationThis is a described potential (being tested) wave cloaking method... i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/Invisibility-Cloaks-Could-Hide-Ships-from-Waves-2.jpgThis is radial section of a pufferfish nest... www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/srep/2013/130701/srep02106/images_hires/m685/srep02106-f5.jpgThis is how a pufferfish nest, with radial arms, and only 2 peaks per radial flows water... www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/srep/2013/130701/srep02106/images_hires/m685/srep02106-f7.jpgThe single circular ring depression between peaks seems to regulate the amount of flow that passes through the middle. Perhaps it's merely coincidence, perhaps I'm reading more into it than what the science seems to say about similar patterns, but, it is my strong belief that a series of raised peaks, artificially created and arranged, could be the 'breakwater' that will work to create a reasonable calm spot, when designed around the calm-weather waves offshore. If the pufferfish radials were cleaned-up into distinct peaks, rather than ridges with peaks, they would more closely resemble the other 'cloaks', above. Just my opinion, based on my observations. Anything short of testing is just a theory. However, science seems to be backing my theory.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Dec 20, 2016 2:00:09 GMT
Incidentally, turbines would be more effective in the circular 'valleys', rather than in the radials, or middle of the 'cloaks'. the circles have increased velocity, due to added flow going around, to meet at the exit point, with the rest of the waves, if I read the scientific information correctly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2016 3:47:04 GMT
How tall is the affected water column above the pufferfish nest?
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Dec 20, 2016 4:41:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Dec 20, 2016 4:59:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Aug 29, 2018 9:54:56 GMT
Have a call scheduled for Thursday morning to University of Houston to discuss my theory on wave control with artificial reef bottom structures. The Professor is head of the Hurricane Resilience team for the Gulf Coast, with multiple Universities from Florida to Texas.
|
|
|
Post by jeff on Aug 31, 2018 18:51:00 GMT
So, my call leads to wider possibilities... The Hurricane Resilience people will be looking at it for testing and simulation studies.
|
|