Blog

Posted on

The original people of Polynesia

How did people ever come into Polynesia?and where dit they come from?

If you look at the currents and the winds on the Pacific Ocean, they mainly go from East to West. Only when you get south of the 60 degees, the winds become from the west. But on these latitudes it is cold and the winds are hard, with names like ‘the Screaming Sixties’ and the ‘Furious Fifties’.

The prevailing winds and currents in the Pacific Ocean, and the route of Heyerdahl

So it is not strange that in the sixties the antropologist Thor Heyerdahl assumed that the Pacific islands were settled by the South Americans. He and his crew tried to sail on a balsa wood raft from Peru to one of the islands. They ended up on an island of the Tuamotus. It convinced Heyerdahl and many others that the Polynesian islands got their first settlers from South America.

Heyerdahls self made balsa raft Kon-Tiki, where he and his fellow researchers sailed from Peru to the Tuamotu’s.

And, let’s be fair: it is really difficult to believe that these people came all the way from Asisa, thousands and thousands of miles against the winds and currents. Even with the current Western boats and sailors, considered being superior, it would be really a hard job. And, the old Polynesians did not have charts, not even a compass to support the navigation.

From the West, despite the prevailing winds?

Nevertheless, not every scientist agreed with Heyerdahl. There were cultural and genetic indications pointing the other way, to the West. Check the tattoos for example. It was wide spread in Polynesia, even up to New Zealand. But there was no tattoo culture in Peru.

A Maori tattoo and a Marquesian tattoo. There are variations for shure, but they have many characteristics that they would be from the same origin

.

The scepsis on Heyerdahls theory, although proven in a physical way, remained. In 1976 scientists and Polynesian have built a classical Polynesian sailing craft. Two canoos are put together with a platform, like a catamaran, and was rigged with two sails the Polynesian way. It is called a wa’a kaulua.

The Hōkūleʻa, replica of a Polynesian voyaging canoe, sailed from Hawaiʻi to Tahiti against prevailing winds.

The Polynesian navigated by reading the waves patterns. Where we Western sailors distinghuish only two or three wave directions, the Polynesians had built up this skill to such a high level of refinement, they could see already for 100 miles in what direction islands would be and they could even predict the weather with reading the waves.

DNA shows the truth, and the great Polynesian navigation skills.

In the current century the DNA research developed. Also a big survey was made on Polynesians from various islands and island groups. In 2021 a report showed that there are strong relations between Polynesians, including the Maori in New Zealand.

This is how the Polynesians spread over the Pacific Ocean. The DNA relation of the Maori (NZ) and the Polynesians is strong.

So, yes, when we Westerns only sailed the coasts of Europe, the Polynesians were already that developed, that they navigated with their boats over the complete Pacific Ocean, from New Zealand and Melanesia, all the way up to the Marquesas, Gambier and Hawaii.

Right now, there are even indications that they sailed all the way to the West coast of North America (near San Francisco). But that is for later.

Posted on

Means of transport in a row from sustainable to dirty 

Before even thinking of a means of transport, it is best to first think in advance whether you have to go somewhere, and can combine it. Because the unused energy is the most sustainable energy. 

Sustainable Yacht 

Sailing is a fossil-free activity anyway. But if you sail sustainably, so without fossil fuels, including cooking and living on the yacht, then you are by far doing the best. 

    Bicycle 

      Did you know that cycling costs even less energy than walking? It is only the product itself. Somewhere in the late eighties of the last century there was a German study that showed that the wear on tires and chains was even less than the wear on shoes. In the meantime, we are all so rich that we buy a new bike every time. So, the most polluting thing is the purchase. 

      What helps is to prevent yourself being influenced by the ‘silent’ methods of commercial (social?) media.  you could also take a Swapfiets.

      This is a Swapfiets, a Swap Bike. You pay a monthly fee of about 15 Euro and the company garantees you have a bike, and when it is broken they fix it or give you a spare bike instead.

      Walking 

        Transport by your feet comes in at number 3. The advantage is, just like cycling, that you move more, so you don’t have to go to the gym as much (by car?). 

        Electric bicycle 

          This is slightly more polluting than the bicycle because it has more parts that have a shorter lifespan. In terms of time, the lifespan is also shorter – not in terms of kilometers. Just like with the bicycle, the sustainability problem is the rapid replacement. For example, because it is out of fashion. Take the racing bike, which is bought in an enthusiastic mood, but is cycled less and less but is out of fashion because they are now 150 grams lighter. 

          Train 

          Dutch trains run on green energy. Because they last for decades and are designed for good maintenance, they last a long time. It looks excellent. 

          The only disadvantage, which formally falls under ‘green’ is also the wood burning, so there is still pollution from sulphur and nitrogen compounds, among other things. What the train cannot do is get close to home, but here the metro does its job.

          Electric bus 

          The bus does that part that the train can no longer do: the small and remote parts. 

          The resistance of rolling tires on the road is considerably higher than the resistance of the train wheels on the nice smooth rails, so driving costs a lot more energy. The air resistance is also much higher. No matter how green it is, it costs more wind and solar panels (and wood burning) than the train. 

          Moped and scooter 

          The moped often still has a type of combustion engine (two-stroke, on mixed lubrication) that is quite polluting. 

          However, the emissions from the small engine are much smaller than those of the car. 

          The scooter of today does better, because it often has a four-stroke engine, just like a car. The electric scooter is ranked by the (electric) bicycle, in terms of sustainability. 

          Electric car 

          If you charge the electric car exclusively on green energy, only few fossil emissions are created (only from the wood burning part). 

          Such a car needs very little maintenance, because unlike fossil cars, there are almost no moving parts. They last a long time. Only the batteries need to be replaced after five or ten years, but these are becoming increasingly durable.

          Fossil car 

          The fossil car converts 30 to 40 percent of fossil energy into power for propulsion. The remaining 60-70% is emitted through heat, carbon dioxide, sulphur compounds and nitrogen compounds. 

          Airplane 

          The jet plane is the biggest polluter, even if you calculate per kilometre. An example: flying from Europe to the Marquesas has the same environmental impact as an average yacht in a year. 

          The propeller plane still has some efficiency in consumption, but it is quite slow. We can expect the first electric planes from this. If you are going to vote in Europe, vote for the party that taxes the emissions of at least flying. Then we will at least reduce the worst polluters.

          Posted on

          The level playing field for sustainable fishing at sea

          Three years ago, on our way to Gambia, it was in the early morning when we entered the Senegalese waters and a Senegalese wooden fisher boat passed by.

          The little, traditional fishers can always be seen around a wreck, because the big industrial fishing ships can not come that close to wrecks with their enormous gear.

          Two skinny men, with worn out clothes on, asked us for water. So we gave them water and some bread. We felt that moment that they were already a night at sea, but still had no catch. And they were clearly determined not to come home without any fish.

          Source: globalvoices.org the impact of China’s Fishing Policies on West Africa

          Today, we heard a small news item on the radio: Europe does not want to extend the agreement with Senegal to fish in their waters, because there is no enforcement from the Senegalese government. In European words, the EU identified Senegal as a “non-cooperating country” in the fight against illegal fishing earlier this year, citing “failures in monitoring, control and surveillance systems” on Senegalese ships in extraterritorial waters as well as on foreign vessels in the port of Dakar, the capital. (source: Washington Post November 16, 2024).

          It looks like Senegal is the bad guy, because they don’t do their duty.

          What exactly is happening here? What if we look closer?

          For many years the EU en Senegal have had a contract that allows the Europeans to fish in the Senegalese waters. Europe pays Senegal 8,5 million Euros per year and some 18 French and Spanish fishing ships fish in their waters. It means that the fishing waters are for these European fishers only.

          Fishy business?

          This seems to go against their own economy, because each 1 of the 25 Senegalese people depends on fishing: the fishers themselves, the salesmen, and the people processing fish. Why is the government selling it then? Well, let’s put it this way: it can’t be proven that all these millions go straight to the State. Or to put it differently: it could very well be skimmed by the top politicians network. Like it happens in so many poor countries.

          Or level playing field?

          Senegal has 15 million inhabitants, Europe has 30 times more. Indicating the economical power by its Gross Domestic Product, Senegal’s is 30 billion, the European Union ‘s is 20 trillion dollars. A difference of about 18,000 times. This is David against Goliath. This level playing field is completely out of balance. However, the European Union made this deal because they see it as part of the development policy. The European fishers fish according to a sustainable protocol, fishing only on fish the Senegalese don’t traditionally fish, so there should be fish the next year. Also they don’t fish their full quota. So it might work, if nobody else catches fish from the Senegalese waters.

          Senegal’s fishing crisis, source: youtube/euronews

          Therefore, the contract requirement is that the Senegalese government should also do the surveillance of their waters. That costs many millions a year. So they can’t. And they won’t, because, as told, 1 to 25 Senegalese inhabitants rely on the fishing, and you don’t jeopardise your compatriots.

          Also, we saw many Chinese ships in Senegalese and Gambian waters. Greenpeace estimates that more than 400 Chinese fishing vessels are currently operating off the coast of West Africa. For Senegal it is simply not possible to start messing with China, a nation about 20,000 times stronger. Again, it is the level playing field.

          Meanwhile, the Senegalese waters are empty now. Europe still points at Senegal to correct the illegals, such as China. Is this reasonable? Each 25th Senegalese man, woman and child need the fish.

          Source: globalvoices.org, the impact of China’s Fishing Policies on West Africa

          Posted on

          12 quotes about sustainability

          Some food for thoughts.

          It starts with Peters favorite quote and it ends with some quotes we wrote down in earlier blogs.

          The Earth doesnot belong to us. We belong to the Earth (Chief Seattle)

          The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now (Chinese proverb)

          The Earth provides enough for everyones need. But not to everyones greed           (Ghandi)

          I want to know the guy that invented single use plastic.

          We get one credit card per week in our body. How much do I take from my credit card to get it out again?

          It costs about 1 year to get uranium for nuclear power quality, and it costs 20.000 years to get the radio activity back to a safe level.

          The greatest threat to the Earth is the tought that someone else will save it. (Robert Swan)

          Posted on

          Climate Fresk

          The climate change matter is quite difificult to understand. Especially the consequenses are rather diverse.

          Now there is a game, called Climate Fresk. You can play with a group. This way you get more and more insight in the whole issue of climate change.

          How Climate Fresk works: you need a facilitator and some people. The facilitator is trained and gives information about the climate and factors. Then he puts a stack of cards on the table, with captions like: “fossil fuels” and “temperature rises” and as a group you start to put them in causal order.

          You can do it with your group of sailors. Playing it on the boat is perhaps too small, because you need a big table. But in your living room is fine. Or in the club, the classroom, wherever.

          We played it. Everybody draws there own conclusions. What astonished me were the numerous effects on us, the human beings. Most of the nature will survive, like trees, insects, and fishes. No worries about the ecosystem, it is constantly adapting. but the adaptation will not be in favor of the mammals, and especially the humans. The effects on us are big, if not devastating.

          Check https://climatefresk.org/world/

          Posted on

          The sea level also rises in Nuku Hiva

          The Ya is now on anchor in the Taiohae Bay of Nuku Hiva, Marqueasas. Every day when you walk along the shore, the waves splash against the sea wall. Often some refreshing drops come in your face. Nice.

          When will the waves run over the quai and flood into the Haiotae town?

          But for how long?

          Here some numbers and graphics gathered by NASA.

          More and more exceedences in the hourly sea levels

          According to the latest reports, in 2050 the temperature will be risen about 2.5 degrees. (source: Earthcharts.org). This means that the waves would inundate the road, just before first houses. But then there should be no further rising…

          Check for more detalils the NASA report: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/527/Nuku%20Hiva_France_combined.pdf

          Posted on

          Cheaper wind turbines

          Last blog told about smart turbines. But what about a cheap one? Then there is the Airloom. It is a bunch of blades running on a oval track.

          The Airloom looks like low tech, and yes, in a sense, it is.

          The blades are 10 meter in length, mounted to a rail 20 meters high. The blades have a profile to let the wind make a lift power to forward and the blades move along the cable. The cable propels the generator and voila: there is the electricity.

          The Test

          It is tested with a 15 kiloWatt setup in Wyoming, USA. This is a small scale test, just for a 15 kW maximum yield. When extrapolated to a larger scale, it looks promising.

          Comparison to the conventional 3 blade turbine

          The disadvantage of the Airloom compared to the conventional three blade turbine is clear: the Airloom is build low, and there is much less wind.

          But, you can put much more blades, and many more fields closer to each other, that per square surface you will get more yield.

          The advantage is the price. Now, the estimates are that a kilowatthour generated by an Airloom would cost $ 0,13, whilst a conventional 3 blade generates our energy for $0,35 or more.

          You can put the Airlooms way closer to each other than you can do with the 3 blade turbines, without disturbing the wind flows.

          The cheap price is possible because of:

          • the low technology. The Airloom blades and construction can be built from normal materials, while the conventional blades and construction must be built from high tech carbon.
          • The transport costs. An Airloom construction for 10 MW fits in one container, while the transport of a conventional turbine, with its enormous blades, is a specialized job, sometimes taking a planning of one year ahead.
          • The maintenance is cheap. The materials cost not much, and especially the labour doesnot require any special efforts. The conventional 3 blade turbines on the contrary, require extreme costs, or it even can not be repaired.
          • The estetics, on land. Not much people like the 100 to 150 high wind turbines, dominating the horizon for many miles, of complete provinces. Many counties in the Netherlands have the policy to permit the enormous windturbines, just out of the necessity of power. If the Airlooms were built in stead, it would save a lot of horizon pollution.
          Check out more on: Crazy, or Genius?

          Realization

          Just now, there has been found a sponsor/investor to build a larger scale field. If this would work according to the expectations, it could be the future for windmills on land.

          We will keep you posted.

          You are interested to build a small one yourself? Check out here and see it running.

          Posted on

          Smarter windturbines

          For more than two thousand years we use windmills, or windturbines. They all have a horizontal shaft, and nowadays they mostly have 3 blades.

          These blades have a bended profile, so they make the wind bending and then slide along the profile. It is looks like the wings of an airplane and it works that way. The wind bends along the profile and that makes the wing go up, or the blade go round. They call this ‘lift’ power. It can work great, because, when the blade starts moving, it gets more wind by its own speed. The speed of the tip of a blade is always much higher than the true wind blowing.  And, more wind speed along that blade means: more lift power. So more electricity.

          The wind is high, not low. If we check the windgenerators on yachts,  one often sees the windgenerator on a little pole astern of the ship.  That is so a pity! Windgenerators work when placed high, and free of turbulence. This is the first rule, an important condition.

          Nowadays, windturbines are built even higher than 150 meter. The highest at this moment is even 270 meters (Maasvlakte turbine). One rotation with 4 Beaufort delivers the energy of one household!

          These enormous windturbines are impressive, but expensive. .

          In the vertical shaft windmill, all equipments and all forces are on the top of the mast.

          With all forces in top of the mast, it means a heavy construction, with extrapolating costs on building and maintenance when you go higher.

          Other disadvantages:
          * the blades can not handle wind direction changes. The yield lowers and there will be extra forces on the mast top.
          * in the downwind area of the strike of the enormous blades, the wind is disturbed. So you can’t place these turbines close to another, and you need a lot of space for a wind turbine field.

          Vertical shaft

          There are windturbines with a vertical shaft.

          That would solve a lot of these problems:
          * the forces are evenly spread over the complete mast, which is the shaft itself.
          * Changes of wind direction have no influence at all.
          *You can put the alternator low. maintenance costs are low.
          * the downwind area of disturbance is very small, so you can put a lot of them in a dense area.
          * The building and maintenance costs for maintenance will be relatively low, with nearly all moving and electric parts on the lowest level.

          The principle of a vertical shaft. This windmill runs on the resistance, the drag, of the wind. Therefore, it runs slow.

          But, there is a big ‘but’. First, these ones work not on lift, but generally on the resistance of the wind. Mr. Darrieus solved this a bit by inventing his windturbines

          The profiles of the blades of a Darrieus windturbine resemble the shape of an airplane wing. When going the half rotation to the wind, there is a lift power. So the ‘but’ is a bit less. These windturbines spin faster than a ‘drag windmill’ but cannot reach the speed of a horizontal axis wind turbine.

          The smart windmill is the double windmill

          Already for some decades, there are experiments in Japan with a smart principle: you make a double windmill, where one spins on the rotor (anchor) of the motor, and the other counter rotates and make the stator spin, the motor itself.

          It leads to this principle, shown here under.

          This windmill generates enough for a Japanese household.

          A next step is made by the Norwegian World Wide Wind, with the development of a double windturbine, light enough to float.

          The World Wide Wind turbine uses the principle of the Darrieus mill.

          This turbine should deal with  all disadvantages of the horizontal shaft windmill:

          • The construction is light and cheap; maintenance costs are low
          • No problems with wind direction changes
          • High density of turbines possible
          • They float so they can also be build in deeper seas
          • No need for hurricane stops, because the construction and profile make them self regulating

          In  about five years we will know if this is true, because then they should be operational.

          Because it is floating, it will go closer to the surface with strong winds, and therefore it gets less wind. It uses nature.

          It is a question of taste, but when I would pass this wind turbine field at sea, the looks are way better than a field of the static, heavy horizontal shaft turbines built on big concrete platforms.
          Posted on

          Climate Change – Some Concrete Consequenses for Sailors

          The rate of ocean warming has almost doubled since 2005. In addition, more than a fifth of the world’s ocean surface will experience a severe heat wave in 2023, reports the European climate service Copernicus. The oceans, which cover 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, are an important regulator of the Earth’s climate. This week tropical storms killed 300 people in Nepal and 30 in the USA.
          Ocean sailors know that a seawater temperature of over 29 degrees Celsius is the main precondition for hurricanes. In August 2022, a record temperature of 29.2 degrees Celsius was measured in the coastal waters of the Balearic Islands.

          Where did that lead for sailors? Here some films with the concrete consequenses of climate change this summer.

          Hurricane winds in Ibiza and Formentera
          Severe storms and rainfall Mallorca

          A superyacht on anchor capsized and sank in a minute

          The irony here is that some guests on board of the superyacht belong to the richest of the world, who also create a relative big part of the climate change.

          The phenomenon already has a name: Medicane.

          Some basic explanation

          What can you do?

          • Live in a small house
          • Use public transport instead of a car (electric or not).
          • Reduce your consumption and start at the source: protect yourself from advertisements and ‘social’ media.
          • Vote for a political party that dares to make regulations at European level, that makes the polluter pay. And with the associated law enforcement.