ferro-cement submarine versus conventional concrete

I was only making the point, that it may be a financial issue.

Hard to say if in fact it is a real deal, or in fact some type of scam, but either way the economy would put a quick stop to it.

You may be right, I have not spent the time or energy to look into that site beyond the one time I browsed it.

I do find the concept interesting, but I am not in a position to pass judgement one way or the other on its legitimacy.

 

Having built many millions of dollars in marine concrete structures and many many millions of pounds of concrete I can tell you the idea is viable if done as a structure. That means plans, engineering calculations, quality control, and inspection. Everything you would need to have to make it successful. It is actually not that expensive, at least the hull. We are talking about $5000 in epoxy coated rebar, $10,000 in concrete, about $2000 in machine rentals, of course land to build this, a fiberglass mold $10,000, maybe $10,000 in day labor and 2 months start to finish. That is just my rough guess based in previous jobs I have done. Moving the monster might be another problem since moving 100 tons is never easy except in a large boat yard.

When my construction company was working full tilt a few years, I could have built this out of spare rebar , labor and just a little concrete. But in todays world the only that can fund this stuff are located in the jungles of Colombia... Um.. Sound familiar...

 

So the bickering and argueing continue even WITHOUT Wellmer...

 

alas Tom--it runs rampant on my threads...

 

MyDauphin says it all in a very truthfull manner.

 

The ferrocement is a good thing to do. It is not that easy, it is expensive, but well designed and well Done, why not. Benford built a 17' catboat like that.
I sailed a 60' schooner in ferocement, quite a nice boat. All the inside in raised paneled.
Some succeed, some are mislead by the numbers of book stating that it's easy for an amateur. Oh no, quite the contrary.
What will be the most easiest way to built a one off of a good size for an amateur?
I have my own idea, but you what you think?

 

I agree, it is your thread. I apologize. I will delete the beginning of my post to Submarine Tom, living the rest patterning to the thread

 

I know Will from other places although he would not recognize me here.
He is a short tempered dick, that’s for sure.
Also, that haircut is so 1950’s but he is a professional and has produced several successful projects over the years in a very new and challenging field.
The concrete submarine works: they float, they sink and they float again.
As far as being involved in the drug trade: don’t know, don’t care. If he did build for them then it was to finance his obsession: he has built these abominations since he was a young man in Austria.
As Jesus said: none of your damn business.
Back on topic:
Tensile strength and flexibility would be greatly improved by the use of a polymer (in place of sand) as filler but the trick is to find one with the same expansion rate as Portland.
Anyone?

 

Wouldn't that be the displacement of the submerged pressure hull not the dry weight?

 

That doesn't sound like a good idea. There's a lot more to material properties than expansion rate.

 

Isn´t it impressive?

The "supporters" pop up quite regularely, the critics must be searched for.

But never the supporters provide technical evidence....

 

Sad, but so true. The deafening silence speaks volumes.

 

I dont know where you figure that the critics must be searched for - I have over a dozen unanswered questions way back in the early stages, as do you and dozens of others.

Its amazing how you like to make a 'war' - Us and Them mentality. Its like you have money on the outcome.

I guess I 'support' someone who has the nerve to try something so fraught with problems, but you cant possibly state 'supporters' dont ask a lot of questions.

Its all a waste of time anyway - Wellmer isnt making any clarification on this or any other forum I know if, and the concrete blob hasnt moved. I am happy to write it off as another maritime failed crazy idea - another one of thousands.

 

There is a big difference between supporting an endeavour, no matter how easy or hard, compared with supporting a claim which is baseless and has no supporting evidence.

The hard work endeavour is just that, attempting to over come difficulties, which is always worth admiring. I am trying to do XXX, using existing and know evidence (or not) but just pushing the envelope to further our understanding.

Making claims and statements about XXX or YYY which has no supporting evidence is following blind faith. This is diametrically opposite to good old fashion hard work and determination and is not pushing any technical boundaries, it is just pure fiction and must always be questioned.

 

I am still interested in polymers as a hull material. Some boats have the hull listed as composite but thats a pretty broad catagory. Could one of you pros give me a link or search terms that would help me learn exactly what kind of composites are used?