Underwater question

_V1qY

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
May 31, 2012
Messages
138
Trophies
0
XP
166
Country
Since water has a higher specific latent heat than air; if 2 identical houses were built, one on land, one underwater: would the underwater house require less money to be spent on insulation?

- Theoretically speaking.
 

Xuphor

I have lied to all of you. I am deeply sorry.
Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
1,681
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
USA
XP
1,430
Country
United States
Since water has a higher specific latent heat than air; if 2 identical houses were built, one on land, one underwater: would the underwater house require less money to be spent on insulation?

- Theoretically speaking.
As Bortz said, theoretically yes, you'd spend way less on insulation, but you'd spend a ton of money on things that the above water house wouldn't need, these expensive things are some things that would need to be heavily altered or replaced altogether for underwater use (some of which I'm not even sure how):


1 - Every door and window being air-tight
2 - A way to constantly get fresh air into the house
NOTE: Just the two things above would significantly outweigh the cost of likely the entire above water house by itself.
3 - Electricity
4 - Plumbing - particularly toilets, they rely on a water weight balance to flush properly
5 - (after electricity works) All wireless things that would transmit outside the house (4G/3G, Dish/DirectTV/Cell Phones/etc)
6 - Water pressure buildup on the outside of the house
7 - Glass that can withstand shark/large fish directly ramming them
8 - Foundation problems, big time

There's more I'm sure, that I can't think of. Why did I make this list of faults with a hypothetical idea?
I'm really, really, really, really, really, really bored. I'm being entirely accurate though.
 

BORTZ

The Amazing
Supervisor
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
13,160
Trophies
2
Age
32
Location
Pittsburgh
XP
14,683
Country
United States
Actually you solve tons of your problems if you just build your house into the side of a hill or something. Earth will insulate your house, and you dont have to worry about all the nonsense you would have to if you were, say, underwater. fresh air isnt a problem if even PART of your place could be above ground. Sharks/water build up/ foundation problems would be non existant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EZ-Megaman

Xuphor

I have lied to all of you. I am deeply sorry.
Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
1,681
Trophies
0
Age
34
Location
USA
XP
1,430
Country
United States
Actually you solve tons of your problems if you just build your house into the side of a hill or something. Earth will insulate your house, and you dont have to worry about all the nonsense you would have to if you were, say, underwater. fresh air isnt a problem if even PART of your place could be above ground. Sharks/water build up/ foundation problems would be non existant.
Actually, getting a stable foundation in the side of a cliff is extremely expensive. Gotta make sure the foundation is stable without screwing up the stability of the cliff and crushing the house, you know?
 

FAST6191

Techromancer
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
33,867
Trophies
2
Website
trastindustries.com
XP
22,598
Country
United Kingdom
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2009/01/PRISM_3_sst_FEBLG.jpg
And it gets far worse with depth though probably not in the place you would build your house http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/ocean/images/thermocline.jpg

Assuming you want to keep your house above ambient (personally I quite like temperatures of near freezing or 11C in my house but most usually sit somewhere around 20)... time for physics

Latent heat is not such a problem as thermal capacity and given the Second law of thermodynamics you change from "heating the great outdoors" to "heating the sea" which is a considerably more energy intensive process.
Couple that with heat transmission into liquid being somewhat easier than heat transfer into gas or vacuum you are looking a large heating bill or serious insulation in most places.
 

Deleted member 319809

MAH BOI/GURL
Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
900
Trophies
0
XP
461
Country
Canada
One of the most necessary things for a human is to breathe in air, which contains oxygen, and to breathe out air which contains more carbon dioxide than the input. If you have no way to get new oxygen back into your house, you're dead.

You would need a two-way pump that acts as an intermediary between your house and the sea, and would:
a) Separate the water into hydrogen (waste output) and oxygen, and pump the oxygen into the house.
b) Take your exhaled carbon dioxide and pump it out of the house.

Or just live with enough plants. But there's a problem with that. Plants need light to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen via photosynthesis. Underwater, if you're deep enough under sea level, there is very little light.

My opinion? Leave underwater houses to Spongebob.
 

Walker D

I have a hat
Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
1,334
Trophies
0
Location
My home
XP
748
Country
Brazil
You would need a two-way pump that acts as an intermediary between your house and the sea, and would:
a) Separate the water into hydrogen (waste output) and oxygen, and pump the oxygen into the house.

Imagine now that a unpretentious captain is chilling out with his boat ...he goes over your house.. ..then he decides to smoke a bit to relax..

tumblr_lj5ci8yamp1qbyvbvo1_500.gif

jaws201.gif
 

orcid

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
374
Trophies
0
XP
393
Country
Austria
If the water outside the house is colder than the temperature you want in your house, you will need good insulation, too. With a bad insulation it will probably cost you even more to heat your underwaterhouse because you will need more energy to heat the surrounding of the house.
The only advantage of the water is that you will have a more stable temperature outside the house. Because of this you could spend less on insulation in certain areas of the world.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    really have to buy the top end model to get a tv that doesnt have any of those compromises and that would've had more dimming zones too but i am not made o money
    Gift
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    @Julie_Pilgrim "very bright" is essentially pure white
    Gift
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    pure white doesn't show up all that much it's mainly when looking at a bright sky
    Gift
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    and if the clouds in the sky have slightly less definition to them because i turned on the contrast enhancer who cares
    Gift
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    that's not important
    Gift
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    i can't tell the difference
    Gift
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    but i can certainly tell the difference with black crush if i'm watching a scifi movie and i can't see wtf is going on
    Gift
  • SG854 @ SG854:
    Human vision is logarithmic, it's not linear. And nits doesn't tell the whole story of perceived brightness. OLED'S look brighter then LCD's even when both are set to the same nit values because of the higher contrast ratio on OLED's
    Gift
  • SG854 @ SG854:
    OLED's have a 3D look
    Gift
  • kenenthk @ kenenthk:
    Charging port is more likely to fry up or battery fail before the display tbh lol
    Gift
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    "And nits doesn't tell the whole story of perceived brightness" it's not about perceived brightness it's about all HDR content in TV and movies being mastered for 1000 nits so it doesn't look right with anything lower, it's also about dynamic range
    Gift
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    "OLED's have a 3D look" no they don't lol
    Gift
  • SG854 @ SG854:
    As an owner of a OLED and you saying that you never seen an OLED I think I know what I'm talking about lol. I'm not talking about 3D as in 3D glasses. I'm talking about depth and pop in the picture
    Gift
  • kenenthk @ kenenthk:
    I mean to be fair og vitas are still kicking and not many have suffered from pixel bleed and they're going on nearly 10 years
    Gift
  • SG854 @ SG854:
    OLED's can get away with a lower peak brightness and still provide punchy HDR because of their contrast ratio. Like I said human vision is logarithmic. The higher the peak brightness the diminishing returns in perceived brightness.
    Gift
  • kenenthk @ kenenthk:
    Just get 5 years enjoyment out of it until Nintendy releases something and everyone forgets about switch games lol
    Gift
  • SG854 @ SG854:
    @The Real Jdbye Oleds hit around 750 nits nowadays. The difference between a 1000 nit and a 750 nit isn't huge. It's only about a 4% increase in perceived brightness. Not huge at all. You'll need at least 2000 nit displays to notice a bigger difference.
    Gift
  • SG854 @ SG854:
    Read this thread it explains it. 1000 nits is not a huge jump from 750 the LG OLEDs can hit. As I said human vision is non linear.
    +2
    Gift
  • Gift
  • mr_switch @ mr_switch:
    Not exactly 3D but the colors does pops out more
    Gift
  • mr_switch @ mr_switch:
    I just want a true dark mode theme
    for OLED Switch
    Gift
  • Julie_Pilgrim @ Julie_Pilgrim:
    yeah honestly i hate how the only two switch theme options are blinding holy light of god or grey
    Gift
  • El_Doot @ El_Doot:
    Kill eyes OR bore eyes to death
    +1
    Gift
  • Julie_Pilgrim @ Julie_Pilgrim:
    switch dark mode is ok i just wish it was a bit darker
    Gift
  • F @ Forseenink3938:
    Can anyone here please help me on how to use TickCrypt 2.0?
    Gift
    F @ Forseenink3938: Can anyone here please help me on how to use TickCrypt 2.0?