How big is a boat?

This question is not simply theoretical. I wonder what is the boundary between boats and ships and other floating platforms?

Can you call the attached pictures boats?

The reason I ask is because I am interested in discussing such large marine platforms, but am not sure if anyone on this forum would find it appropriate to boatdesign.net.

 

It is my understanding that anything less than 165' is small craft. I don't really know but seems I have heard that somewhere.

 

You can put a boat on a ship, you cannot put a ship on a boat.

 

Shape of the boat can be any shape.......round for instant but a ship as a carrier well........ would be more streamline........

A boat usually more to river and near offshore and ship for rough wild sea...... in theory........! Boat Builder and designer are crazy bunch of sea lover.... Could the future of what we know now as boat be changed totally?.....

 

If we take into account the CE rules for recreational craft, I'd say a boat is a floating vessel under 24 m length. Over that length you have to use the ships rules and regulations for designing and building.

Why shouldn't you discuss about floating platforms or other structures?

 

Jonathan,

These are not boats but it won't be the first time ships and big floating platforms are discussed here
We already had discussions about super aircraft carriers, super passenger ships, floating cities etc.

Yoav

 

Kombi......10/10!

 

Are those huge submarines still called boats?

About the topic of floating buildings/structures;
Hydropolus
being built in Dubai - underwater hotel...very cool

Link:
http://hydropolis.com/homepage.html

 

As Kombi and Ranchi Otto rightly state, and as the old definition was given - "a boat was (still is?) a vessel that can be lifted onboard a ship". Size immaterial! This of course was in the days when a ship was a specific thing - i.e. a three (or more) masted sailing vessel, square rigged on all masts. In modern times the definition has blurred somewhat to the stage where some presumably knowledgeable people start quoting size and shape, but the simple definition is as above! Kombi also gives the defining second part of this definition.

Of interest when the first submarines were invented they were all small, carried on motherships etc. They were thus refered to as "boats", as much a insult as anything else, by the surface fleet; who considered submariners to be low underhand creatures - things that sneaked in were not worthy to be considered as gentlemen! This term has stuck even though you need a very large crane to lift some submarines onboard ship (nuclear!). It has also lead to insults from the submarine fraternity towards the surface fleet, who consider all surface vessels to be "skimmers" (at least in the Royal Navy that is - and as others don't count that will stay as is)

 

OK, it doesn't seem to be too controversial to discuss large marine platforms. Of course some people have said that many of these things are just pipe dreams (or joint dreams, as the case may be) but I have given consideration to the issue for many years and would enjoy and I believe benefit from the ideas of others.

First I would like to lay a little groundwork on the underlying basis of my thoughts about the viability and maybe even the inevitability of a new era of human expansion onto the marine environment. I realize that there are many potential undesirable side effect that could come from such marine utilization, but since I also think it is inevitable, it makes more sense to start thinking about such things and how to mitigate the undesirable effects.

Right until the present time humans have had an impulse to explore and inhabit new lands and environments. We spend enormous sums on outer space, which is the most inhospitable climate for life that is imaginable.

In recent historical periods, lands sparsely populated by societies with little technological capability for self protection, have been over-run and colonized by more techically advanced societies. The North and South American continents are the most recent to succomb to these pressures of population, wealth accumulation and the urge to explore discover and pioneer.

Now those opportunities for exploration and discovery are largely a thing of the past as there is little land that has not been laid claim to by technically advanced societies.

Nonetheless, the population pressures and instincts of humans are unlikely to be quickly modified.

About 3/4 (I believe that's approx. correct) of the planet surface is covered with water, yet little has been done to colonize it even though it represents a new frontier which is potentially much more hospitable than other places like Antarctica or outer space.

The explorer instinct in us explains, in part, the strong disposition by a group of people, well represented in this forum, to develop technologies capable of traversing and bringing the vast marine world into the realm of utilization and enjoyment. These are the boat afficionados and their counterparts, the naval architects, boat designers, and builders.

Population and political pressures tend to encourage people to move out from the centers of population to develop new possibilities for developing social models, freedoms and possibilities for economic benefits and comforts.

The International Law of the Sea currently is the central body of internationally agreed upon rules for utilization of the oceans and seas by all nations. Although I am not an expert in this area, experts I have talked to suggest that the rules are the most open-ended rules for any domain on Earth. Therefore it is not necessarily going against the grain of established rules to contemplate the colonization of the marine environment.

Existing throughout the world are areas in the ocean/seas that have permanent or highly predictable weather and ocean conditions. Such areas could represent prime opportunities for marine habitat development. There are also many protected waters, harbors, peninsulas and seas that protect, to a high degree, from the most volatile conditions of wind and waves.

The development of such habitats includes the platforms themselves and the marine transportation systems (boats, ships and aircraft) that would enable them to function. So boat design is in any case an important element of the total concept.

The development of cruise ship sized condominiums has already begun and are available to purchase as we speak. Even larger concepts are in development, such as the Freedom Ship concept being developed by a group in Florida. So actually the movement in this direction is well underway.

Living on the oceans may have some distinct advantages.

• Easy control of access and thus, security,
• the ability to formulate a very user friendly lifestyle,
• the possibility of establishing much more rational social systems and governance than any that now exist,
• The ability to have a very low tax burden.

Very large floating habitats have some great advantages. It is claimed by the developers of Freedom Ship that, due to the enormous size of the vessel, a 100 foot high wave encountering the ship would cause a vertical movement of only 1 foot. This aspect of building vessels to outsize the ocean conditions is definitely within engineering capability.

So the questions become, what is the best approach to undertake such developments in terms of design, materials, and economic viability?

That is what I would like to explore in this thread and invite any interested members to comment. Let's keep it cordial and base our observations and ideas as much as we can on factual information and not opinion or ego-tripping.

 

And how small is a boat?

For many people kayaks canoes and other very small watercrafts are not even worthy of being called 'boats', especially if they are non-motorized, and worst of all if they happen to be human powered... -These things are just 'kayaks', 'canoes', 'mini-cats' etc., including my first W boat model, which I had to rename 'W Kayak'...

Vox Populi Vox Dei, whether it's in politics, marketing or even design...

Anyway, it brings me back to the subject of 'micronautical' design, but that's a totally different subject from the subject of Jonathan's thread

Yoav

 

My wife and I were wondering what the difference was between a hill and a mountain, so we looked in the dictionary. The definition is, a hill is smaller than a mountain and a mountain is larger than a hill. The same dictionary says a boat can be a ship but then it says a ship is larger than a boat. I hope that clears up any confusion. Sam

 

Some info on floating cities, villages and more...
http://www.oceansatlas.org/unatlas/about/oceansofthefuture/background/seemore3.html
http://reality.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Oceana/
http://www.ecoboot.nl/artikelen/floating_houses.php
http://www.celestopea.com/Designs.htm
http://oceania.org/
http://www.buckminster.info/Index/T/Triton.htm

A Sea City design from 1971:
http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~bat/sea-city.html

And, of course, Freedom Ship:
http://www.freedomship.com/

Material: Flexible concrete?:
http://www.physorg.com/news3985.html

Energy: Nuclear?:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip60.htm
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

 

• 
  
  I would think security would be hard to aquire and maintain, as you would have no help from any established armys, navies, etc.
  Establishing and maintaining a more rational social system would also be a huge undertaking.
  It seems it is a two part endeavor. A sociological part and a mechanical part, the mechanical part being the easiest. Here's a site where the people aren't foaming at the mouth politically and have an idea mechanically, but I believe it needs a little more thought. Sam
  http://seastead.org/commented/paper/title.html