"nightjar .uk.com>" What I had in mind was a balloon, made of the stuff that inflatable
That doesn't sound like a shock absorber.
To absorb the shock you need something that is energy absorbent. Stretching elastic and then releasing it doesn't absorb much energy.
If this thing is floating then drill holes in the shell and let the water be the shock absorber. If you get the number/size of the holes correct you will be able to absorb the energy with ease. You may even be able to use the energy absorbed to power the locator beacons.
yes, clever. One red surrounded by 6 yellows. Red has gps and mapping, yellows just have rf receiver, solenoids, flaps. All have power sources.
...
I thought those were only short range. But more to the point, one would still have to go out in a boat and search for raft after raft, which is grossly uneconomic.
good point.
yeah. My one question is whether they would survive carrying equipment with metal corners, which would at times catch on the plastic film as goods came out. Cheap yes, I just dont see how its going to be robust enough.
If OTOH we made the cushion layer from say 3 layers of extra large cell bubble wrap, damage would not cause deflation of other bubbles, and damage would only be 1/3 depth, and only cover a square inch or so... might be much better.
Also theres no removal, deflation and reinflation, all of which wuold consume time.
Someone else said this doesnt constitute a shock absorber, but I think it does. Consider what happens in an impact with a rock: first the airpocket layer acts as a cushion, eliminating high impact pressures.
2nd it acts as a spring, bouncing the contents and shell back, with little energy absorption. Now the movement of the shell in the water does the shock absorbing. Basic but works.
problem. These things couldnt by any chance sit deep enough to avoid the ships could they? And maybe pop up only when theyre right close to destination. Would silence some of the complaints. How much are sparklet cartridges? Or maybe theres electrolysis, if enough energy is stored. No, too slow.
do you know how its being done?
Objects that float can take advantage of 3 motive forces with differing movement:
surface water movement
below surface water movement
wind
Each of these 3 has different movement. Due to surface waves, there is always motive power there. So, for limited motive power, all we need are controlled flaps. The flaps merely choose when to grip the surface water more, when to grip the water below more, and optionally possibly when to make use of wind as well.
With GPS etc we have not only crude motive power, but crude nav control as well.
Running them 100' down would rob us of the motive and nav options, turning them into passive eggs. Sitting them on the surface would make their course altered by unpredicted winds. Problem, unless one can somehow switch between the 2 at will. But thats too risky to vulnerable boats.
Another pre-made alternative would be fuel oil tanks. Domestic ones are usually about 1,200 litres and industrial ones can be a lot larger. They would need a bit of modification to allow for loading, but the moulds are simple enough to allow for that to be done fairly cheaply. The one-off prices would put them out of your price range, but I would be surprised if you couldn't buy them at your target price for a million off.
Seems to be about £1 per cu ft. However, that was based upon each unit having its own navigation system. Adopting my suggestion of having one navigator module linked to several drones would probably give a bit more cash to buy the shells.
Say we had one red tank with =A335 of tronics, and 6 yellows with =A310 of tronics on each.
=A395/7 =3D =A313.57 each, leaving a budget of about =A330 per tank. Very possibly.
Only leaves the question of wind vs ship damage. If theyre red and yellow, and sit flush with the surface, they should be somewhat visible. And being metal, very detectable. Not sure that would make it ok though!
Actually, I had in mind the plastic rotational moulded ones for corrosion resistance. They will be in the sea for several months if they are travelling any distance. Semi-submerged metal won't be very detectable in any case. You probably need to put a radar reflector up on a post on your master container. It is a long time since I did any yachting, so I have no idea what they cost now, but the design is very simple.
Not if you want it to be strong enough to survive the other forces that act upon a package passing through the post or a carrier service. Our standard transit box will survive unscathed a drop of 4m onto concrete and being stacked under other fully laden boxes to a height of over 2m. These are, intentionally, greater loads than they are actually likely to meet during auotmatic handling, but they do get dropped off conveyor belts and they do end up under other goods.
flexible. The idea is to get down to =A31/cuft all in, and no more. Large and small containers would both have their pros and cons. Smaller I think would tend to win, since a large container might be considered worth towing off for the scrap or reuse value of the container alone.
Also the target market sector would work very much better with smaller dispatches. Hence the initial idea of 2'x2' and 5' long giant eggs.
Too small and the tronics takes the cost over the top, too large and the container price rises per cuft, since theyd have to be much tougher to survive higher joule impacts, and theft risk rises. A 10 ft shipping container would likely be too tempting. Also the idea is to get down to much smaller shipments than 1 containerload.
Well the plastic membrane doesn't absorb the energy so it must pass to the packed object. It will be much worse if the package is in constant motion e.g. floating in the sea.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.