I assumed that ice layer is supposed to be a few feet thick, and given figures are just for illustration that that amount of ice is trivial to make. If the plan really is to build an artificial glacier hundreds of feet thick, that creates a different set of problems, the first being that described structure wouldn’t do it. Depending on temperature and wind speed, ice will either be carried away by wind, form an ice hill that would grow until it blocks nozzles, or accumulate on scaffolding until it collapses under its weight.
The problem with heavy iceboat is that its weight has to be distributed evenly on numerous skates, because otherwise skates that are more heavily loaded dig deeper and friction increases drastically. Such design was never built.
Your calculation of expenses relies on three assumptions: that this is an end-to-end route, that it takes 120 hours, and that it takes one pilot to drive an iceship (of this size and in these conditions). All of these are wrong.
As for refrigeration—a much larger fraction of cargo types doesn’t tolerate freezing.
“I assumed that ice layer is supposed to be a few feet thick, and given figures are just for illustration that that amount of ice is trivial to make.”
Um, if I have illustrated that “the amount of ice is trivial to make,” then you are agreeing that it would be trivial to add more, which negates the original argument you made. So, it seems like you’ve just picked-up your goal posts and started walking away with them.
“Depending on temperature and wind speed, ice will either be carried away by wind, form an ice hill that would grow until it blocks nozzles, or accumulate on scaffolding until it collapses under its weight.”
You may not have noticed, in my original post, that I pointed to exactly why the Polar Vortex, blowing continual sub-zero winds off the Arctic waters, onto the land, would be exactly what is needed to “be carried away be the wind” and “form an ice hill”. Yes! That is exactly the natural process which constructs the necessary mound, and as the mound grows in size, there is what is called a “Cliff-Effect” that accelerates that wind (it’s really just Venturi Effect and a change in orientation), causing the ice to be carried to the far side, widening AWAY from you—THAT is what prevents the scaffold from being covered, and prevents the ice from blocking the nozzles. The wind carries the ice away from nozzles, NOT toward the nozzles. I hope you can visualize that process: there is no physical way for ‘straight-line winds’ to blow the newly-formed ice onto the scaffold or nozzles. And, as the ice downwind accrues, then velocities over the top will increase, carrying the new ice to the FAR side, such that it does not obstruct your spray. This is actual engineering; I hope you can see how it works.
“heavily loaded dig deeper and friction increases drastically.”
That is incorrect. When ice is pressed-upon by skates “digging deeper”, their pressure causes momentary melting, and that melt-water is precisely what LOWERS friction. If you fail to press-down upon the ice firmly enough, you cannot form a hydroplane.
Further, you can observe the depth dug in passage of a ship, with a given load per cm2 footprint. For the “500t vessel” I described, as I mentioned in other areas of the comments, you could fit all that on a 10m x 25m vessel at only 2 tons per m2. That is not such an immense increase in weight that it would somehow get the vessels “stuck”, and yes, many skates can be placed along the bottom in parallel. And, because no one has built an ice boat so large (which is due to lake ice constraints, NOT material-strength constraints) no one needed to try extra skates. You have yet to present a plausible situation where ‘more skates’ leads to impossible-to-surmount design-failure. You only claim that more skates is a failure, without saying what would make it fail; a claim without support or explanation. “All of these are wrong” you say, without a word to what makes me wrong. You are not providing insight or valuable critique; you are making unsupported claims.
I assumed that ice layer is supposed to be a few feet thick, and given figures are just for illustration that that amount of ice is trivial to make. If the plan really is to build an artificial glacier hundreds of feet thick, that creates a different set of problems, the first being that described structure wouldn’t do it. Depending on temperature and wind speed, ice will either be carried away by wind, form an ice hill that would grow until it blocks nozzles, or accumulate on scaffolding until it collapses under its weight.
The problem with heavy iceboat is that its weight has to be distributed evenly on numerous skates, because otherwise skates that are more heavily loaded dig deeper and friction increases drastically. Such design was never built.
Your calculation of expenses relies on three assumptions: that this is an end-to-end route, that it takes 120 hours, and that it takes one pilot to drive an iceship (of this size and in these conditions). All of these are wrong. As for refrigeration—a much larger fraction of cargo types doesn’t tolerate freezing.
“I assumed that ice layer is supposed to be a few feet thick, and given figures are just for illustration that that amount of ice is trivial to make.”
Um, if I have illustrated that “the amount of ice is trivial to make,” then you are agreeing that it would be trivial to add more, which negates the original argument you made. So, it seems like you’ve just picked-up your goal posts and started walking away with them.
“Depending on temperature and wind speed, ice will either be carried away by wind, form an ice hill that would grow until it blocks nozzles, or accumulate on scaffolding until it collapses under its weight.”
You may not have noticed, in my original post, that I pointed to exactly why the Polar Vortex, blowing continual sub-zero winds off the Arctic waters, onto the land, would be exactly what is needed to “be carried away be the wind” and “form an ice hill”. Yes! That is exactly the natural process which constructs the necessary mound, and as the mound grows in size, there is what is called a “Cliff-Effect” that accelerates that wind (it’s really just Venturi Effect and a change in orientation), causing the ice to be carried to the far side, widening AWAY from you—THAT is what prevents the scaffold from being covered, and prevents the ice from blocking the nozzles. The wind carries the ice away from nozzles, NOT toward the nozzles. I hope you can visualize that process: there is no physical way for ‘straight-line winds’ to blow the newly-formed ice onto the scaffold or nozzles. And, as the ice downwind accrues, then velocities over the top will increase, carrying the new ice to the FAR side, such that it does not obstruct your spray. This is actual engineering; I hope you can see how it works.
“heavily loaded dig deeper and friction increases drastically.”
That is incorrect. When ice is pressed-upon by skates “digging deeper”, their pressure causes momentary melting, and that melt-water is precisely what LOWERS friction. If you fail to press-down upon the ice firmly enough, you cannot form a hydroplane.
Further, you can observe the depth dug in passage of a ship, with a given load per cm2 footprint. For the “500t vessel” I described, as I mentioned in other areas of the comments, you could fit all that on a 10m x 25m vessel at only 2 tons per m2. That is not such an immense increase in weight that it would somehow get the vessels “stuck”, and yes, many skates can be placed along the bottom in parallel. And, because no one has built an ice boat so large (which is due to lake ice constraints, NOT material-strength constraints) no one needed to try extra skates. You have yet to present a plausible situation where ‘more skates’ leads to impossible-to-surmount design-failure. You only claim that more skates is a failure, without saying what would make it fail; a claim without support or explanation. “All of these are wrong” you say, without a word to what makes me wrong. You are not providing insight or valuable critique; you are making unsupported claims.