Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 296 (168822)
12-16-2004 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by tsig
12-15-2004 1:11 PM


Re: pension plan

Little red button, where are you...? Oh found it - thanks for the tip.
Thanks for reply Flying Hawk; (Witty title too)
Is it OK if we stick just to "oversize hull" issues for the moment? - I'd like to see it through. Besides, any YEC could argue about selling land to pay workers, or how they were not necessarily all brain damaged psychopaths since they still got married (Matt 24:38). Although it's a good point, even the apparent ethical dilemma of a drowned workforce is concluded in 1 Pet 3:19.
Back to HULL:
Sounds like you are advocating option A.
quote:
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.
The square-cube law will limit the size of any hull (assuming waves are big enough), and a steel hull will always beat a timber hull in the big-ness stakes. But 300-350ft might be an unecessary restriction for wood.
THE ERRORS OF CARVEL PLANKING
Let's clarify this alleged 300-350ft barrier for a minute. The extra long windjammers were not limited by the "strength of the wood used", but by joint efficiency. Failure in these carvel hulls was related to the induced shear of primary hull loads (bending and torsion), resulting in plank-to-plank shear strains and leakage. This is not the same as the hull being limited by the "strength of the wood used", in which case one would expect to see failures due to extreme fibre stresses. (e.g. tensile/compression damage of the timber).
So the hulls failed due to weak joints, not weak wood.
If the alleged length barrier was simply a matter of weak wood then we could easily solve this by increasing the thickness. For example, everyday Douglas Fir handles roughly 1/10th of the stress of mild steel. (These are conservative building code stresses taking into account the higher variability of timber, not laboratory figures which are much higher. In pure lab numbers, some timbers are almost half the tensile strength of steel, which is obviously unattainable in real life). So taking 1/10th as a rough guide you would simply end up with a hull wall 10 times as thick as an equivalent steel skin - which is not very thick at all. However, simplistic beam theory methods do not apply to a carvel hull (parallel plank on frame. See definition http://www.emarcon.net/frontoffice/glossary.asp?LEXICON_I...) because these hulls never approached the mechanical properties of wood.
The joints failed first. Carvel planking is simply a flawed design. The planks keep out the water but they do little to contribute to the integration of the hull members into a single beam. The result is a "bundle of reeds" effect, where there is very little shear resistance between planks. (Hence the restoration of the USS Constitution never bothered with the inefficiencies of carvel planking. See Andrew Davis, Keith Gallion of Tri-Coastal Marine, Inc.
article at A Cold Molded Shell for USS Constellation)
PROBLEMS WITH IRON STRAPS
Analysis of various steel reinforcment options for the repair of the (still-water-bending-moment-hogged) Constitution all suffered the same problem - the steel/timber interface. Hence steel reinforcement is not the best way to fix up the mistakes of parallel (bundle of reeds) planking. The best way is an integrated timber hull such as cold moulded planking (diagonal layers) or edge jointing (such as Greek triremes). This explains why modern timber ships such as the 1994 minehunters used diagonal planking.
Hence there is every reason a wooden hull built in an integrated plank structure could outperform even the iron strap reinforced carvel planked hull... and break the 300ft barrier in the meantime.
Of course, these approaches add considerably to the labor cost - especially the edge-jointed method. Noah would be best off using a cold moulded hull - which means a lot more sawing and a consistent plank thickness.
But most of this is already on The Flood | Answers in Genesis
quote:
There are threads here at EvC that covers this point in detail.
There's more now.
Hmmm.
This message has been edited by Hmmm, 12-16-2004 09:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by tsig, posted 12-15-2004 1:11 PM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by tsig, posted 12-17-2004 1:44 AM Hmmm has replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 296 (168826)
12-16-2004 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Hmmm
12-15-2004 6:48 PM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...
quote:
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).
That doesn't appear as if it can possibly be true - loads and stability impinge directly on the hull and cause stress. That is, the possible degree of sustainable instability must necessarily be a function of the hulls actual strength. Which is why, to the best of my knowledge, the most efficient wooden hull designs have been flexible rather than rigid.
quote:
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.
Well no, it appears to me to be an extreme optimum case; that is the way I read it they appear to have cancelled out wave action by assuming waves come equally from all sides. There is no basis for this assumption, not even if there were a global flood, because waves would still be generated by wind and current. So I suspect that this is a manipulation that removes a great deal of stress from their model, making it more "plausible".
Fundamentally, I just don't think a boat this big could have been built with the technology of the day. There is a pretty smooth progression of naval technology in the mediterranean basin all the way into, and some way beyond, the late middle ages, and a boat of this scale appears to be much, much too early to be technically feasible. You reflect this in your argument about integrated planking but fail to explain how Noah came by this hi tech imformation or why it was subsequently lost.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 12-16-2004 05:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Hmmm, posted 12-15-2004 6:48 PM Hmmm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 6:30 AM contracycle has replied
 Message 216 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 8:59 AM contracycle has replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 296 (168829)
12-16-2004 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by crashfrog
12-15-2004 2:07 PM


Re: Too Big or not too Big?

Hi Crashfrog;
quote:
You mean, those Egyptian and Chinese civilizations that so inconviniently both pre- and post-date the flood...
It comes down to the historicity of pre 2500BC dating of civilizations. Since modern scholarship has a phobia about going by written records, they seem to think radiometric dating can solve it all. Even the supposedly well-established Egyptian chronologies could be out by centuries according to a recent shakeup regarding Mediterranean C12/C14 imbalance. http://www.informath.org/14C02a.pdf
Funny how they can consider this significant - they must have a pretty weak dating scheme to go by if you can shake it this easily. "Egyptian chronology does not have secure foundations" (Cryer 1995; Rohl 1995; Hagens 1996) as referenced in above paper.
But this particular issue (the dating of the earliest civilization with written records etc - i.e. something to DATE by) all fall into the several millenia BC zone (or BCE or the Christophobic). This is suspicious right away, and sounds very much like the post flood Babel dispersion.
So the explanation is simply that dates are inflated. There are much worse problems with the 'other' interpretation - the cave man to civilized man scenario. Why does civilization burst on the scene a few millenia BC? Where are all the Neandethal burial remains? Why do world population estimates extrapolate back to Noah so nicely? How come the world didn't fill up years ago?
quote:
...without any mention of the flood whatsoever in their records
What? No mention of a flood? I think you'll be hard pressed to find a civilization that doesn't mention a flood. And some dramatic similarities with the Biblical account too - which is exactly what you would expect if everyone took the story with them after they left Babel.
You have a better explanation for the global distribution of flood legends? I'd like to hear it.
There's more than a few hints in the YEC camp here.
Hmmm
This message has been edited by Hmmm, 12-16-2004 09:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 12-15-2004 2:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 12:39 PM Hmmm has replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 214 of 296 (168832)
12-16-2004 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by contracycle
12-16-2004 5:54 AM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...

Hi again Contracyle;
quote:
loads and stability impinge directly on the hull and cause stress
You misunderstand the point. First you determine wave loads, then you can do stress analysis. The waves don't care what the hull is made of (so long as it is rigid as I said). I stand by my quote.
Imposed loads are independent of hull material. It appears you are not clear on the distinction between applied loads and internal stresses. Have a look at this formula for wave bending moment (ABS);
(from Missing Link | Answers in Genesis )
Mw = k2 * C1 * L2 * B * Cb / 1000 (hogging)
Where:
C1 = 10.75 - ((300-L) / 100) ^ 3/2 (for 90<= Length <= 300m)
Hogging k2 = 19.37 (for units in tf.m)
There is NO material property involved.
Hong obtained estimates for imposed loads first and THEN did structural analysis.
quote:
...to the best of my knowledge, the most efficient wooden hull designs have been flexible rather than rigid.
No problem - you just need some more knowledge. Try reading the previous link to Tricoastal Marine...which says
"There are at least three false ideas about wooden ship structure that, somewhat amazingly, are still current:
Wooden ships need to flex..."
quote:
they appear to have cancelled out wave action by assuming waves come equally from all sides.
Wrong again. A random sea does not assume all the waves are cancelling each other. Even a non Naval Architect should know a bit more about waves - it would be an absurd fluke for all the waves to have just the right amplitude, wavelength, period and phase to cancel each other out.
Hong's credentials;
1977 , B.S. Seoul National Univ., Korea ( Naval Architect )
1979 , M.S. Seoul National Univ., Korea ( Naval Architect )
1988 , Ph.D. Univ. of Michigan, USA. ( Applied Mechanics )
BTW This study was paid for by creationists in Korea, but undertaken at the estabished research centre KRISO, of which Hong is a principle researcher, hence he gets the credit (well, first on the list of 9 researchers anyway. Second is S. Na - a professor of Structural Engineering)
You might need to lift your game to demolish this paper.
Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway | Answers in Genesis
This message has been edited by Hmmm, 12-16-2004 09:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by contracycle, posted 12-16-2004 5:54 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Nighttrain, posted 12-16-2004 6:52 AM Hmmm has replied
 Message 234 by contracycle, posted 12-17-2004 4:24 AM Hmmm has replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 215 of 296 (168835)
12-16-2004 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 6:30 AM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...
quote:
You might need to lift your game to demolish this paper.
If you care to look around, you will find your arguments on the PRATT list (Points Refuted A Thousand Times). Gets a bit tiresome having to cover them again.
Btw, any chance of ditching that hideous yellow text?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 6:30 AM Hmmm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 9:18 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 296 (168857)
12-16-2004 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by contracycle
12-16-2004 5:54 AM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...
Hi Contracycle;
quote:
There is a pretty smooth progression of naval technology...
(A separate reply since this is a different issue)
That's odd - land based constructions in enduring materals like stone isn't a smooth progression at all. "With spectacular suddenness, an architecture sprang up that was suitable for kings and gods...stone monuments that rank with the most impressive of any age" (Ancient Egypt: Lionel Casson, Leonard Krieger, Time Life Books 1966.
But when it comes to ships they have a nice "smooth progression." This doesn't make much sense. For example the Egyptians were floating obelisks down the Nile, but several thousand years later the same rock had Renaissance engineers hard pressed to even move.
Casson puts his finger on it in his summary of Ch3 (Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World)- "Scant as it is, the evidence unmistakably reveals the second millenium BC as a crucial period for Mediterranean maritime history..."
Even with the familiar Greek trireme Casson confesses "Very little is known about the shape and construction of the hull". p89 Triremes 500-3232BC. Sound familiar?
The problem is ships rot away, and the scant knowledge gets filled in with a nice smooth curve. But the painstaking efforts of underwater archeology are showing that some of these ancient shiprights could teach the much later Europeans a few lessons - like how to integrate your planking for example - to make a ship strong enough to ram another vessel but light enough to be pulled up the beach by the crew (yes, large ones too). Try doing that with any other wooden vessel know to man. Even the shear size claimed by ancient records of Greek ships had been disqualified by the consensus of opinion - until some super-sized bronze ramming bows turned up.
So the KNOWN progression is getting increasingly bumpy. The Greek triremes deteriorated (the earlier ones were built better)...the Chinese regressed...ancient shiprights in India had 500ft water locked drydocks and they lost their ship building skills too...
"Scant as it is, the evidence unmistakably reveals..."
Wow - what a phrase.
Hmmm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by contracycle, posted 12-16-2004 5:54 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by contracycle, posted 12-17-2004 4:55 AM Hmmm has not replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 296 (168862)
12-16-2004 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Nighttrain
12-16-2004 6:52 AM


Re: Too Big or not too Big...

Hi Nighttrain;
I've looked around and haven't found much about the Hong paper, Greeko-Roman planking, why the windjammers flexed, the effect of diagonal planking, why iron straps are an incomplete solution...
So it appears the scoffers have come to their own consensus that the ark is a structural impossibility based on lack of information.
Now - if the PRATT list is not just a metaphor but actually has a refutation of the Hong study - let me at it...
BTW. I changed color - I run my screen dark so I can forget - sorry.
Hmmm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Nighttrain, posted 12-16-2004 6:52 AM Nighttrain has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 218 of 296 (168908)
12-16-2004 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 6:05 AM


Even the supposedly well-established Egyptian chronologies could be out by centuries according to a recent shakeup regarding Mediterranean C12/C14 imbalance.
They would have to be off by millenia for these civilizations to be entirely post-flood. It's ludicrous to suggest that our chronologies are that errant.
Why do world population estimates extrapolate back to Noah so nicely?
Well, they don't. Not in the least. In order to get them to "extrapolate" in the manner that you do, you have to ignore almost every war, famine, and plague in human history.
You have a better explanation for the global distribution of flood legends? I'd like to hear it.
It's considerably simpler than yours: every one of these civilizations lives, or has lived, where it has flooded. What about all the civilizations that you don't mention, the ones with no flood stories whatsoever?
Oh, right. They just happened to forget about the most fatal cataclysm in Earth's history. Does that seem reasonable to you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 6:05 AM Hmmm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 12:50 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 222 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 4:12 PM crashfrog has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 219 of 296 (168911)
12-16-2004 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by crashfrog
12-16-2004 12:39 PM


quote:
Why do world population estimates extrapolate back to Noah so nicely?
Can you give us the Calculation that leads you to that conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 12:39 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 3:27 PM CK has not replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 296 (168995)
12-16-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by CK
12-16-2004 12:50 PM



Hi Charles
Population estimate...
Start with this one
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html
which even includes the apparently anti-Noah data in...
U.S. Census Bureau: Page not found
but put some realistic tolerances into the calcs and you don't necessarily exclude a 4500 year history. Dolphn shows how the KNOWN data actually fits the creation model better.
But these estimates done without any Biblical contraint (census.gov) do not give evolution friendly results. We are obviously going to hit the beginning pretty recently despite the usual age inflating efforts.
The evolutionist has a problem here. Where are all the people if we have been breeding for such a hypothetically long time? Wars and famine?
Hmmm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by CK, posted 12-16-2004 12:50 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 3:56 PM Hmmm has replied
 Message 228 by DBlevins, posted 12-16-2004 5:58 PM Hmmm has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 296 (169009)
12-16-2004 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 3:27 PM


Wars and famine?
And disease. The Black Plague killed a third of Europe's population in the mid-14th century. Even today the vast majority of human beings live lives beyond access to regular medical care.
From this graph you can see the historical rate of population growth:
As you can see it's entirely within the expectations of the evolutionary timeframe. There's really just as many people as we should expect given reasonable k values.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-16-2004 03:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 3:27 PM Hmmm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 5:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 296 (169019)
12-16-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by crashfrog
12-16-2004 12:39 PM



quote:
It's ludicrous to suggest that our chronologies are that errant.
They used to quibble about decades, now it's 500 years. What next?
This message has been edited by Hmmm, 12-16-2004 05:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 12:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 4:36 PM Hmmm has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 223 of 296 (169040)
12-16-2004 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Hmmm
12-16-2004 4:12 PM


They used to quibble about decades, now it's 500 years.
Documentation? Primary sources, please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 4:12 PM Hmmm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Hmmm, posted 12-16-2004 5:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 296 (169076)
12-16-2004 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by crashfrog
12-16-2004 3:56 PM


World population growth rate

quote:
And disease. The Black Plague killed a third of Europe's population in the mid-14th century.
I'd hazard a guess we are going off topic here, (About that Boat - Noah's Ark). Might get admin putting their nose in soon.
Read the link - it talks about Europe's plague and it's trivial effect on curbing population growth. E.g. "...the awful figures for natural disasters are very quickly made up for by the subsequent rates of increase among the survivors (Langer 1964)"
quote:
Even today the vast majority of human beings live lives beyond access to regular medical care.
Good point, and these are the countries with the booming populations. So recent world population growth cannot be attributed to modern medicine. Yet another contradiction in the evolutionary just-so story.
quote:
...entirely within the expectations of the evolutionary timeframe...reasonable k values.
Not a good fit for 100's of thousands of years at all, and this is with a loaded dice - unjustifiably low population parameters. Far lower than the fit obtained from any KNOWN historically ascertained data points. (Read the Dolphin link) Anyone can plot these curves for and see for themselves;
To fit an evolutionary timescale into this data you have to make out that mankind has been on the edge of extinction for most of history and then suddenly makes a recovery in recent (KNOWN) history. And all this without an excuse either - not medicine, obviously not war and plague, and definitely not famine in fertile countries...
Maybe you could add a big catastrophe into your model - say a big flood or something... you know - some sort of global event ...
Hmmm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 3:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 5:33 PM Hmmm has not replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 225 of 296 (169093)
12-16-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
12-16-2004 4:36 PM



For 500 year issue, see previously cited
http://www.informath.org/14C02a.pdf
Hmmm
This message has been edited by Hmmm, 12-16-2004 05:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 4:36 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 5:37 PM Hmmm has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024