|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2911 days) Posts: 158 From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: About that Boat - Noah's Ark | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4153 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
How about this?
How would the boat have to designed to provide a breathable environment for the people and animals on board? :-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Nope
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4153 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
OK how about this?
Which woodern material known to man would survive the super-heating that would occur from the gravitational potential energy? Would Noah have been able to treat such a woodern material with the natural products available?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Oh stop that!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4153 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I'm out of ammo - I surrender!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hmmm Inactive Member |
Hi;
Wow a thread that is actually running... Is this the best place to ask questions about the seaworthiness of a big wooden hull in a big sea? ("About that boat - Noah's Ark" sounds like it should be about that boat called Noah's Ark to me...) Seems the hogging and sagging issue comes up a bit. So what's the verdict? Have we made up our collective minds yet? Cheers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hmmm Inactive Member |
Hmmm No bites. Pity. It appears to me that we should be able to classify the seakeeping, strength and stability of Noah's Ark as either;
Any other options? (in the classification of hull performance only)With the focus specifically on the naval architecture, this stuff is assessable. A yes/no situation. Either it can be done or it can't be done. But first, what are the options? Hmmm's to all...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hmmm Inactive Member |
Well, there's a study on point (C) showing L300 x B50 x D30 as an OK spec. Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway | Answers in Genesis Considering 50/30 is a reasonable B/D for a cargo ship, and L/B is proportionally a little shorter than today's vessels - this bit holds water at least. So L/B/D is in the ballpark. Hmmm. Next: Scale...The cubit is somewhere from 18" to 21", which makes the ark longer than any timber ship I know. (Unless the Chinese can dig up some more bits of 'junk'). After all, we only have a rudder post and an assortment of feet, so we can't be sure they weren't telling tall stories (or long stories). When it comes to building ancient ships the Greeks had it together, but the Ptolemy IV Tessarakonteres (a few hundred BC) was not provably seagoing. Pretty impressive construction though - check out the mortised edge-jointed strakes. Nice way to deal with bending induced shear. (Casson has good info on this)
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
So...
Too big or not too big, that is the question. More Hmmm's
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
So... Too big or not too big, that is the question. The answer is impossible. The ark is impossible in many ways. Where did all the manpower come from to build the ark? It was a huge project requiring the labor of thousands. Where did all of the wood come from and how was the wood finished? Noah must have had an industrial-strength sawmill. I'll stop there for now. enjoy!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hmmm Inactive Member |
Thanks Flying Hawk; Construction logistics doesn't discredit the ark because we have clear evidence of massive workforces and coordinated construction in the ancient Egyptians and Chinese civilizations. It might be used to cast doubt on the story, but it doesn't DISPROVE anything. Back to the A,B & C's.Is the 150m wooden vessel a structural impossibility? So far this argument has been based on a perceived limit for sailing ships around 1900. But who says these ships define the limit for a wooden hull? They might define the limit for carvel planked hulls perhaps, but this is not the only way to build a vessel. Hmmm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
What a ridiculous article; it is utterly permeated with assumptions. Such as the fact that they admit they have no idea what the ark looked like, going so far as to say "Little is known about the shape and form of the Ark’s hull. However, several explorers have each claimed that they have discovered the remains of the Ark at some sites on Mt. Ararat.8 Based on their arguments and references,9 we estimated the form of the Ark’s hull as that of a barge-type ship."
So the "design" of the ark is based on discredited claims. If they know where the bloody ark is, why didn't they just go there and look for themselves? Although the naval technology is rather beyond my comprehension, it does not seem logical to me to analyse the notional arks performance by direct comparison with modern passanger ships. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but modern passenger ships are made of riveted steel, not pinned planks. They refer to a "weighted average" of indeices but do not explain the weighting. They eventually conlude the ark had a near-optimal hull form, except they admit at the beginning that they have no idea what the form "was", and have simply selected one. At another point they remakr that they are introducing their own term into an existing equation becuase "the waves came from all directions with equal proabability". Thats complete bunk - waves are generated by wind and currents, both of which would NOT be random at the point of local conditions. They then "average" these "safety indices" which I suspect will have produced a toally fictitois result. Becuase what would happen in real life is that wave after wave would hit one side with cumulative effect, and yet in the model the cumulative effect is offset by notional waves coming the other way. Looks like junk to me I'm afraid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Construction logistics doesn't discredit the ark because we have clear evidence of massive workforces and coordinated construction in the ancient Egyptians and Chinese civilizations. It might be used to cast doubt on the story, but it doesn't DISPROVE anything. How can you get that many workers in a corrupt and depraved world? What happened to them when Noah floated away?
Back to the A,B & C's. Is the 150m wooden vessel a structural impossibility? So far this argument has been based on a perceived limit for sailing ships around 1900. But who says these ships define the limit for a wooden hull? They might define the limit for carvel planked hulls perhaps, but this is not the only way to build a vessel. The limit for a wooden vessel is defined by the strength of the wood used. The upper limit seems to be about 300m to 350 feet, and that is using iron reinforcements. There are threads here at EvC that covers this point in detail. If you use the red reply button I will get a notice of your response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Could you use the Little Red Reply Button (although it's not exactly all red).
It makes it hard to follow the conversation if you don't and some rely on email notification which that triggers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Construction logistics doesn't discredit the ark because we have clear evidence of massive workforces and coordinated construction in the ancient Egyptians and Chinese civilizations. You mean, those Egyptian and Chinese civilizations that so inconviniently both pre- and post-date the flood, without any mention of the flood whatsoever in their records?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hmmm Inactive Member |
Thanks contracycle; Re: "Safety of Noah's Ark in a Seaway" (Hong et al) Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway | Answers in Genesis The rules for steel ships were used for imposed loads and stability, not hull stresses. So this part of the analysis is independent of hull material and structure (assuming the hull is rigid of course). I don't think much of the random sea (confused sea) state either, in terms of it's low probability in steady wind conditions. Perhaps they used this because they considered it the worst case. Or maybe a default case for comparitive seakeeping studies. A ship in regular waves gets as easy ride so long as it doesn't spend much time broaching (beam sea condition - side on to the waves). But this isn't too hard to organize with a steady wind.(E.g. See the animation on; Missing Link | Answers in Genesis ) Hull form: The Bible doesn't give a shape. This complicates matters considerably (in terms of ascertaining the most likely hull form). I wouldn't bother if it wasn't for the suspiciously good L/B/D and not unreasonable scale. Hmmm
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024