Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 136 of 261 (613373)
04-24-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by slevesque
04-24-2011 8:24 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
I didn't find any pictures of the scale models.
I mean of pictures of tow tank tests generally.
Clearly they didn't make this out of steel with tiny little rivets. And similarly, contrary to what you told ringo, it is not at all clear that "a 1/50 scale model of the ark would include planks 1/50 thickness". Indeed, I doubt it very much, because if they had gone to such extraordinary lengths to achieve verisimilitude, surely they'd have mentioned it.
I agree it does not answer all the questions ...
In particular, even if they did build it out of tiny planks, which they probably didn't, it wouldn't answer questions about structural integrity, which is my concern. What worries me is, wouldn't a ship that size work itself apart, as wooden ships of that size tend to do? This has not been answered.
Their hull-form isn't very far fetched, I'd say.
But see my previous post (previous to this one, I mean, and subsequent to the one you're answering).
Remember that I am only saying that I'm only addressign the assertion that a seaworthy wooden boat that size can't be built. Their calculations and tests show that it can, end of PRATT.
I'm not so convinced as you that they've answered all the concerns. Wouldn't it work apart? If it didn't do that, wouldn't ordinary working at the seams cause it to ship an awful lot of water? --- more than a crew of eight could pump out? If it's stationary, wouldn't it be in danger of broaching to? (A sailing ship needed to run before a storm, if its sails or masts gave way in the process and it turned side-on to the waves it wouldn't last very long.)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:24 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 10:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 137 of 261 (613374)
04-24-2011 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by slevesque
04-24-2011 9:40 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
You really asking me to find the reviews of a 17 year old paper ?
You are the one that brought it up. So unless you can present evidence showing us that some other engineers agree with the calculations and conclusions, then this "paper" ain't worth the photons that are wasted displaying it on my monitor.
Hiding behind the concept of peer-review seems dishonest from where I stand.
And you claim to want to be a scientist? Peer review is a hallmark of the modern scientific process.
Do you understand the engineering behind this paper? Or are you accepting it totally just because it supports your view.
even if all their math was right, and all their tests were accurate
How can I know this unless it is reviewed?
As I said early, you haven't debunked anything.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 9:40 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 10:13 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 138 of 261 (613375)
04-24-2011 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by slevesque
04-24-2011 8:41 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
I have to conclud that the only positive evidence you would accept would be the actual real-size thing being actually built and put to sea. And if that is the case, then my work is pretty much done here as it just becoems plain stupid.
But it ceases to be "plain stupid" if AiG are building an Ark anyway. If they weren't, it would be an unreasonable demand. As they are, is it really so unreasonable that they should go to sea in it? That's usually exactly what people do with replicas of historic ships.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:41 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2011 11:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 139 of 261 (613376)
04-24-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2011 9:47 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
In particular, even if they did build it out of tiny planks, which they probably didn't, it wouldn't answer questions about structural integrity, which is my concern. What worries me is, wouldn't a ship that size work itself apart, as wooden ships of that size tend to do? This has not been answered.
I would suggest reading the section about ''structural safety'' then.
I'm not so convinced as you that they've answered all the concerns. Wouldn't it work apart? If it didn't do that, wouldn't ordinary working at the seams cause it to ship an awful lot of water? --- more than a crew of eight could pump out? If it's stationary, wouldn't it be in danger of broaching to? (A sailing ship needed to run before a storm, if its sails or masts gave way in the process and it turned side-on to the waves it wouldn't last very long.)
It didn't have a mast, and I would then suggest reading the section about overturning ability (I'm unsure what broaching means in this context)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2011 9:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2011 11:50 PM slevesque has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 140 of 261 (613377)
04-24-2011 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by slevesque
04-24-2011 9:06 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:
First off, I didn't show a ''claim''. I showed the math and calculations.
You showed a claim that those calculations have something to do with the real world. I can calculate the IQ of a unicorn but it isn't evidence of anything.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 9:06 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 10:17 PM ringo has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 141 of 261 (613378)
04-24-2011 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Theodoric
04-24-2011 9:51 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
You are the one that brought it up. So unless you can present evidence showing us that some other engineers agree with the calculations and conclusions, then this "paper" ain't worth the photons that are wasted displaying it on my monitor.
First off, you brought in peer-review. And secondly, I'm not forcing you to hold on to some seconr-rated argument against the plausibility of the ark.
The waste is my time answering to mudslinging rather then people who actually want to discuss the math and the paper.
''if it isn't in a secular peer-reviewed journal I won't believe it''. Well good for you, but I won't waste any more time with this childish attitude.
A claim should stand or fall on it's merits, not because of who said it, or where it was written. And if you don't have the knowledge to evaluate it, then jsut say so and move on.
And you claim to want to be a scientist? Peer review is a hallmark of the modern scientific process.
I'm not dissing on peer-review, but I'm pointing out that expecting everything to be peer-reviewed in journals before taking a look at it is stupid.
Do you understand the engineering behind this paper? Or are you accepting it totally just because it supports your view.
Of what I understand of it, I haven't found any reasons to doubt their conclusion. Honestly it isn't that hard to the point of being incomprehensible, I just had to research a lot of technical words.
I'd say the only thing I couldn't evaluate was their claim of the scaled down models validating their theoretical analysis, and having the softwares they used to look if the results they gave were accurate. Although I know I'm far from qualify to assess if everything is right in the paper, I have no reasons to think it is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Theodoric, posted 04-24-2011 9:51 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Theodoric, posted 04-25-2011 9:41 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 142 of 261 (613379)
04-24-2011 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by ringo
04-24-2011 10:06 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
You showed a claim that those calculations have something to do with the real world. I can calculate the IQ of a unicorn but it isn't evidence of anything.
No, I showed the calculations and you are free to look if they have something to do with the real world. They gave all their references:
Comstock, E.N. and Keane, R.G., 1980. Seakeeping by design. Naval Engineer’s Journal 92(2).
Hosoda, R., Kunitake, Y., H. and Nakamura, H., 1983. A method of evaluation of seakeeping performance in ship design based on mission effectiveness concept. PRADS 83, Second International Symposium, Tokyo and Seoul.
Bales, N.K., 1980. Optimizing the seakeeping performance of destroyer type hulls, 13th ONR.
Hong, S.W. et al., 1990. Safety evaluation of ships for the improvement of port control regulation. Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean Engineering Report, BS1783-1364D.
Salvesan, N., Tuck, E.O. and Faltisen, O. 1970. On the motion of ships in confused seas. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 78.
Ochi, M. K., 1964. Prediction of occurence and severity of ship slamming at sea. Fifth Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, Bergen.
What you'll find, I'm pretty sure, is that they didn't pull formula's out of their ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 10:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ringo, posted 04-24-2011 10:29 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 143 of 261 (613381)
04-24-2011 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by slevesque
04-24-2011 10:17 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
slevesque writes:
What you'll find, I'm pretty sure, is that they didn't pull formula's out of their ass.
You're "pretty sure"? In other words, you haven't checked it out either, yet you're confident that they're right. You really need to stop being so credulous.
Once again, if they have confidence in their conclusions, why hasn't the paper been peer-reviewed?

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 10:17 PM slevesque has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 144 of 261 (613391)
04-24-2011 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2011 9:53 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes:
But it ceases to be "plain stupid" if AiG are building an Ark anyway. If they weren't, it would be an unreasonable demand. As they are, is it really so unreasonable that they should go to sea in it? That's usually exactly what people do with replicas of historic ships.
Where did you get the idea that the ark was a ship?
The ark would have been a flat bottom rectangle with a maximum size of 600' long 100' wide and 60' high with 3 floors below the main deck. If they were 16' each that would be 48' to the main deck where the door was. With 12' of space above the main deck.
Now depending on the size of the rooms built on each floor they would determine the strength of the structure.
Would this structure float? I have no idea. But I don't think it had to ever float.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2011 9:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2011 11:34 PM ICANT has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 145 of 261 (613398)
04-24-2011 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by ICANT
04-24-2011 11:05 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
Would this structure float? I have no idea. But I don't think it had to ever float.
I don't see what you're suggesting. Do you suppose that it was airtight and sat on the bottom?
In any case, the book of Genesis seems quite definite about this:
And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
It was floating, OK?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2011 11:05 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2011 11:21 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 146 of 261 (613400)
04-24-2011 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by slevesque
04-24-2011 10:03 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
I would suggest reading the section about ''structural safety'' then.
I did; I don't think it answers my question. What it shows, if I'm reading it rightly, is that they could build a framework out of wood so that no particular beam would immediately snap under the stresses imposed. But this doesn't address the question of the "working"* of the ship. If the waves keep on flexing it, the structure starts working loose; and this has often been the problem with large wooden ships --- it isn't that they immediately snapped, but that they worked themselves apart.
* A technical term.
It didn't have a mast ...
Which means that it starts off in the position of a sailing ship that's been dismasted.
... and I would then suggest reading the section about overturning ability (I'm unsure what broaching means in this context)
Broaching to is when a ship turns side-on to the waves. In a storm, this was often fatal. That's why sails were required --- the ship had to be kept sailing in the direction of the wind, and if the sail or mast carried away, you were in trouble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 10:03 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 147 of 261 (613406)
04-25-2011 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Dr Adequate
04-24-2011 11:50 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
I did; I don't think it answers my question. What it shows, if I'm reading it rightly, is that they could build a framework out of wood so that no particular beam would immediately snap under the stresses imposed. But this doesn't address the question of the "working"* of the ship. If the waves keep on flexing it, the structure starts working loose; and this has often been the problem with large wooden ships --- it isn't that they immediately snapped, but that they worked themselves apart.
From which part did you get the idea that they were evaluating the stress on the individual beams ? I did not get that impression, and this passage:
quote:
An index for structural safety was obtained by assessing the required thickness of the midship for each hull form to endure the vertical bending moment imposed by waves.
certainly gives me the impression they are measuring stress on the total structure.
For the working, I would guess that nothing certainly absolutely stops it, and so every ship work themselves appart in the long run. The question then is how long would it take this one ? I couldn't answer that question, although I would think that the conclusion in the structural safety section implicitly addresses that issue:
quote:
The distribution of the equivalent stress obtained by the stress analysis is shown in Figure 3. Because the maximum stress was smaller than the allowable stress, the Ark could be said to have had safe structural performance.
Which means that it starts off in the position of a sailing ship that's been dismasted.
Well, no, because it wasn't meant to sail, so it isn't a sailing ship. They clearly mention this in the introduction:
quote:
... enable investigations of the practicality of the Ark as a drifting ship in high winds and waves.
So they evaluated that as a drifting ship, it could have navigated on waves as high as 30m. Note that this is using modern passenger ships criteria of what is 'navigable'.
Broaching to is when a ship turns side-on to the waves. In a storm, this was often fatal. That's why sails were required --- the ship had to be kept sailing in the direction of the wind, and if the sail or mast carried away, you were in trouble.
Ok. And so the danger is to overturn ? Isn't that covered in the 'overturning stability' section ?
If not, how do mastless ships (modern) deal with this ? Do they use their motors to align themselves continually, or can't you simply shape the boat so that it aligns itself naturally ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-24-2011 11:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-25-2011 3:26 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 176 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-28-2011 7:53 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 261 (613416)
04-25-2011 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:46 AM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
From which part did you get the idea that they were evaluating the stress on the individual beams ?
If I understand how these calculations work, what you're trying to find out is if the stresses are such that any particular bit of it will snap.
(Obviously if it does, that increases the stress on the other members, and you have a problem.)
Well, no, because it wasn't meant to sail, so it isn't a sailing ship.
Yes, yes, you're missing my point. The point is that sailing ships only managed not to sink in storms by sailing. A ship that couldn't run before the wind broached and capsized. A ship which was designed not to sail at all would be at a distinct disadvantage.
Ok. And so the danger is to overturn ? Isn't that covered in the 'overturning stability' section ?
I'll have another look at it ... currently I'm not sure I follow what they're doing when they write:
Although the information about the Ark is not enough to precisely predict the maximum wave height it could have navigated, we could roughly infer it from comparing the estimated ship responses to a modern passenger ship’s safety criteria.
If not, how do mastless ships (modern) deal with this ? Do they use their motors to align themselves continually, or can't you simply shape the boat so that it aligns itself naturally ?
I read here:
Most oceangoing powerboats have very deeply immersed bows, which is why the only storm tactic that they can employ is heading slowly into the waves. Any other tactic brings with it the potential for loss of control and broaching, with the attendant capsize risks.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:46 AM slevesque has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 149 of 261 (613418)
04-25-2011 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by slevesque
04-24-2011 8:32 PM


Re: That boat won't float ... really ?
if I'm evaluating a given geocentrist claim, and I cannot point out where they are wrong, then I would have no legitimate reason to doubt.
If a geocentrist paper claims to have proved that the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, are you saying you would approach their claim with an open mind, offering them the benefit of the doubt up until the point where you have examined their work?
We are talking about initial impressions, are we not? No-one here is capable of fully reviewing that paper as we don't have the requisite knowledge and experience. If a major oil company announces the publication of their study that shows that oil power is greener than solar power, would you have no legitimate reason to doubt its validity before you study it?
when you have naval engineers telling you that it is possible and you have no other reason to believe them other then the fact they are 'evil creationists' ?
It is not that they are "evil creationists" - it is that they have a vested interest in obtaining the published result. This immediately makes the study worthless until examined thoroughly.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 8:32 PM slevesque has not replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 150 of 261 (613427)
04-25-2011 8:58 AM


If i where building an arc that would have to hold tones of animals and only had bronze age technology id adjust gods plan for the arc a little.
I would build it the way you make a barrel the only thing different is the way the 2 would function the barrel has metal rims around it too combat the force the liquid inside exerts, my arc would be built to combat the force the water outside exerts wanting to come in.
and i dont think i would need any "modern" technology and i think i would be able to build it quite large.
first the floor 2 rows(floors) of beams stretching from the left to the right of the arc one on top of the other and having (dunno the English word for it the same thing flooring has that makes one side fit in to the other side of the next piece) and the 2 rows(floors) would also have these things to fit one row on to the other. so the floor would be leak proof the more the wood would be saturated with watter the more it would get leak proof.
The walls around the floor would be made using the same method and using only beams because i think planks would fail big time.
The other floors would not only have beams stretching from left to right but between 2 beams some would stretch diagonally and square on to those beams creating lots of strong triangles able to combat the forces that would be exerted on the ship.
The same tridiagonal shape would be implemented "where possible" on the supports that hold the floors up sure not pretty and allot of headaches for the people hitting their heads on those diagonal beams inside but very effective in terms of straight.
the roof could probably be made out of thicker planks and a simple 4 sided roof covering the whole top and attached to the sides
a ship like that could probably survive the flood and most probably would not leak picture it like a wooden barrel cut in half (between the bottom and top) and then sealed from above.
With god keeping hurricanes away from the ship it would have a chance. If not it stands a chance of turning over not a very good prospect for all the ones living inside but it would still float.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024