To estimate the weight after accounting for buoyancy, we need to consider:
The net weight of the battery modules, considering buoyancy, is:
Net weight = Total weight - Buoyancy = 12,820 lbs - (5,128 ft³ × 62.4 lbs/ft³) = -28,000 lbs (upward buoyancy).
This suggests that the 21% battery module would actually add buoyancy rather than weight, effectively reducing the seastead's overall buoyant force.
Without the battery modules, the seastead's stability would rely on its wide base (triangle frame) and damping from the walkway and heave plates. In 4-foot chop, the platform would likely experience moderate rolling and heave, but the wide base and damping should keep it manageable for most users. Acceleration would be minimal unless under thrust.
Lowering the battery modules 100 meters would significantly increase the platform's pendulum-like behavior. The added mass and the lowering would increase the period of oscillation, potentially reducing the impact of waves. The platform would feel more stable, especially in rough conditions, but movement would still occur. Acceleration would depend on the wave height and frequency, but the pendulum effect should smooth out some of the motion.
This concept could be promising for seastead owners who want to venture further offshore while maintaining stability. However, the added cost and complexity may not be justified unless there is a clear demand for extended offshore capability. For most users in the Caribbean, the existing design should be stable enough for typical use, with the potential for moderate improvements in rough conditions.
Alternative ideas to consider:
To make this approach more viable, the weight might need to be increased to at least 30% of the seastead's total weight to ensure a noticeable improvement in stability. However, this would conflict with the goal of packing everything into a 45-foot container.