4 ms·

Yes, salt water is corrosive. And yet, there are metal ships with viable lifetimes. This sub-thread is a bit less helpful than I am asking for. Edit: Come on.

Yes, salt water is corrosive. And yet, there are metal ships with viable lifetimes. This sub-thread is a bit less helpful than I am asking for. Edit: Come on. It's not impossible to engineer for ocean use. Wave power generation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-25084721 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-250... Longer term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable

jacquesm 8y ago
Salt water is so corrosive that there is a whole branch of materials science dedicated to coatings and all kinds of other anti-corrosion measures such as galvanic protection using sacrificial material. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of statements such as 'simple systems that work well on the shore need extensive rework for ocean deployment assuming they can work at all'. Even a simple scratch is enough to lay all your carefully produced work to waste.
- cwmoore 8y ago
  Agreed that the environment is vastly different than on land, that a scratch through a coating is akin to no coating at all, that anti-corrosion measures are a constant vigil in oceans. But I asked for sources treating the proposal in the original comment, and got told that "water is wet".
village-idiot 8y ago
It’s obviously not impossible, it’s just expensive, which is a problem in the given context.
- cwmoore 8y ago
  How big is the check and why? That's what's so hard to get an answer for when people are determined already to not to try. I mean, I guess I have Google and a long-weekend. I was hoping for someone to drop an URL that can explain this and provide key terms.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Throw out a speculative idea, get a speculative answer. Dunno why you’re expecting me to go all civil engineer on you, nor do I understand why you’re acting like I’m the barrier to the idea being tried. Go do the math yourself, it’s your idea.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - cwmoore 8y ago
      It wasn't my idea. My idea was that it shouldn't be dismissed for the reason you presented without a citation.
      - PeterisP 8y ago
        What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. As there's a well known consensus that some factor (e.g. saltwater caused maintenance issues in this particular case) tends to be a game-breaker, then it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss 'without a citation' ideas that encounter this factor if the idea has no mention/citation of how they're going to fix, avoid or tolerate this. If there's a plausible-seeming way that the idea can work despite the obstacle, then by all means we can discuss if that way will be sufficient or not; but if the idea simply ignores major problems, then there's nothing to discuss.
        cwmoore 8y ago
        Point taken regarding your first line, though that sword would cut both ways I think. See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=17886400 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=17886400 regarding the second and third.

jacquesm 8y ago

Salt water is so corrosive that there is a whole branch of materials science dedicated to coatings and all kinds of other anti-corrosion measures such as galvanic protection using sacrificial material. The evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of statements such as 'simple systems that work well on the shore need extensive rework for ocean deployment assuming they can work at all'. Even a simple scratch is enough to lay all your carefully produced work to waste.

cwmoore 8y ago
Agreed that the environment is vastly different than on land, that a scratch through a coating is akin to no coating at all, that anti-corrosion measures are a constant vigil in oceans. But I asked for sources treating the proposal in the original comment, and got told that "water is wet".

village-idiot 8y ago

It’s obviously not impossible, it’s just expensive, which is a problem in the given context.

cwmoore 8y ago
How big is the check and why? That's what's so hard to get an answer for when people are determined already to not to try. I mean, I guess I have Google and a long-weekend. I was hoping for someone to drop an URL that can explain this and provide key terms.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Throw out a speculative idea, get a speculative answer. Dunno why you’re expecting me to go all civil engineer on you, nor do I understand why you’re acting like I’m the barrier to the idea being tried. Go do the math yourself, it’s your idea.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - cwmoore 8y ago
    It wasn't my idea. My idea was that it shouldn't be dismissed for the reason you presented without a citation.
    - PeterisP 8y ago
      What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. As there's a well known consensus that some factor (e.g. saltwater caused maintenance issues in this particular case) tends to be a game-breaker, then it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss 'without a citation' ideas that encounter this factor if the idea has no mention/citation of how they're going to fix, avoid or tolerate this. If there's a plausible-seeming way that the idea can work despite the obstacle, then by all means we can discuss if that way will be sufficient or not; but if the idea simply ignores major problems, then there's nothing to discuss.
      - cwmoore 8y ago
        Point taken regarding your first line, though that sword would cut both ways I think. See https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=17886400 https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=17886400 regarding the second and third.