Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,397 Year: 3,654/9,624 Month: 525/974 Week: 138/276 Day: 12/23 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
tsig
Member (Idle past 2929 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 241 of 296 (171825)
12-28-2004 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Hmmm
12-21-2004 7:57 PM


Re: Strength of Materials
So your'e saying you could suspend a 300' section of douglas fir between two points?
While you are on the right track regarding scale-up, using a ship hull as a simply supported beam is several orders of magnitude more severe than the American Bureau of Shipping rules regarding the maximum design wave bending moment. This is because waves are a distributed load.
Engineers generally start with a worst case analysis. At some point the ship will be simply supported.
{changed " to '}
This message has been edited by Flying Hawk, 12-28-2004 14:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Hmmm, posted 12-21-2004 7:57 PM Hmmm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Hmmm, posted 12-28-2004 8:20 PM tsig has replied

Hmmm
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 296 (171990)
12-28-2004 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by tsig
12-28-2004 12:40 AM


Re: Strength of Materials
Thanks Flying Hawke;
It is good to talk about hull bending moments on this thread. Very ON TOPIC!
Just let me clarify the beam comparison a little;
Engineers generally start with a worst case analysis. At some point the ship will be simply supported.
The ABS rule is exactly that - the worst case analysis. You're focus on comparing to a simply supported beam (bridge) is arbitrary, and turns out to be approx twice the span that the ABS rules would suggest.
Using conservative values of 20.6" cubit and block coefficient of 0.98, the ABS wave bending moment is around 111000 tf.m (from Missing Link | Answers in Genesis )
The span of an equivalent simply supported beam will depend on the hull mass. At spec gravity of 0.4, the ABS bending moment would matched by;
Sagging; Simply supported uniformly dist load, span = 74m (47%)
Hogging; Cantilevered uniformly dist load, span = 37m (23%)
But BM=wL^2/8, i.e. Bending moment is proportional to square of span. So Flying Hawke just arbitrarily increased the American Bureau of Shipping worst case rules by a factor of 4.5 (BM = 505021 tf.m)
So your'e saying you could suspend a 300' section of douglas fir between two points?
I just did an example calc in the last post. Are you asking a different question? If so, what sort of "section" do you mean?
If you are saying Noah's Ark could not sustain a 300' span, you may or may not be right. But who says this is any sort of test - 4.5 times higher than the already very conservative ABS rules designed for ships with a working life measured in decades?
However, if a hull could be designed to handle this sort of extreme test then the argument against the hull strength wouldn't hold water.
The first question is whether the hull could span 74m / 243'(sagging) or 37m / 121' (hogging).
Hmmm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by tsig, posted 12-28-2004 12:40 AM tsig has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by tsig, posted 01-28-2005 5:21 AM Hmmm has not replied

tsig
Member (Idle past 2929 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 243 of 296 (181278)
01-28-2005 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by Hmmm
12-21-2004 7:57 PM


Re: Strength of Materials
So with this in mind, let's run the numbers for fun...
Wood: Douglas Fir: Density approx 500 kg/m3
At Ark scale (scale=1), and using cubit of 0.5m,
A solid timber lump weighs 28125 tonnes, giving simply supported bending moment of 5.168e9 Nm. With a section modulus of b*d^2/6, you get Stress = 5.168e9/937.5 = 5.5e6Pa = 5.5MPa (800psi)
Being well short of the 85MPa MOR (maximum failure), we could take it further (without safety factor applied) like this...
To get bending stress of 85PMa, scale=15.4, Length of block 2313m, breadth 385m, height 231m, mass 103 million tonnes .... This is an absurd scale - far bigger than anything afloat today, and equivalent to a 2.3km (1.4 mile) long bridge!
You lost me at Ark scale. I asked you to actually measure something,the stress in both sides of the board, then you could test the compression strength and the tensile strength of the wood, then measure the stress as the length increases. I have some tension transduscers I can send you for the experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Hmmm, posted 12-21-2004 7:57 PM Hmmm has not replied

tsig
Member (Idle past 2929 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 244 of 296 (181282)
01-28-2005 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Hmmm
12-28-2004 8:20 PM


Re: Strength of Materials
How about if we put a 300' length of wood in a wave pool, then measure the result. Probably cant' really replicate worldwide waves I suspect with that much reach they would be very high.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Hmmm, posted 12-28-2004 8:20 PM Hmmm has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 296 (182153)
01-31-2005 9:02 PM


I see a lot of numbers being tossed about about hull bending and such, but they do not seem to be used by anyone here who has actually built a wooden boat or been involved in designing one.I have been messing about in boats for the last 40 of my 52 years, and working in design and construction of vessels since '88, so I have some small knowledge of the topic.
The ancient Greeks and Romans built some nice boats, as did the Egyptians, but we have yet to find anything the size the ark is supposed to have been. 19th century ship builders discovered that a large vessel HAD to be reinforced with metal. Bronze floors, metal disgonals, etc. This is never shown in ancient ship building.
Let's just touch upon the backbone. Just the sheer size of the molding and siding of such a timber would have required a huge tree. It could not have been laminated due to the lack of any sort of structural adhesive. To get the length required would have involved multiple scarph joins, secured with, most likely trunnels, as archaeological evidence suggests from contemporary sources.
Any hull, wood, glass or steel, works in a seaway. All the forces are directed to the weakest part of the whole. This is why boats often leak at the deck joints and why deck joints and cabin/deck joints fail, often with catastrophic results under severe condidtions. (and the Flood would have been severe, due to the enormous fetch.)She would have worked so much, her seams would open to the sea and no family of 8 could bail her fast enough even with modern dewatering devices.
The Ark would have been totally at the mercy of the seas, without directional control or any way to provide thrust to keep her from broaching.
In short, I can't see it happening. Besides the fact that there is no evidence on the earth of a world wide Delude.

Reunite Gondwana!

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Quetzal, posted 01-31-2005 10:24 PM Bonobojones has replied
 Message 249 by tsig, posted 02-01-2005 3:49 PM Bonobojones has not replied
 Message 250 by gBen, posted 02-03-2005 8:16 AM Bonobojones has replied
 Message 252 by contracycle, posted 02-03-2005 10:27 AM Bonobojones has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 246 of 296 (182174)
01-31-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Bonobojones
01-31-2005 9:02 PM


there is no evidence on the earth of a world wide Delude.
Sorry BJ, couldn't resist. I know it was just a typo, but "world-wide Delude" was such an absolutely appropriate malapropism that I couldn't let it slide.
Welcome back. Are you going to be able to stick around for awhile?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Bonobojones, posted 01-31-2005 9:02 PM Bonobojones has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Bonobojones, posted 02-01-2005 8:45 AM Quetzal has replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 247 of 296 (182249)
02-01-2005 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Quetzal
01-31-2005 10:24 PM


I gotta tell you, it wasn't an accident. I enjoyed the response I got when I used the term "Great Delude" over on military.com so much that I decided that I should use it more often.
Ayah, been away for a bit, but when I see people talking about a topic, using streches of the imagination to qualify their arguments, I have to jump in. Especially about boats,
I'll se ya more often here, at least until the workload increases.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Quetzal, posted 01-31-2005 10:24 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Quetzal, posted 02-01-2005 9:55 AM Bonobojones has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 248 of 296 (182277)
02-01-2005 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Bonobojones
02-01-2005 8:45 AM


I'll se ya more often here, at least until the workload increases.
Excellent! I've always enjoyed (and learned from) your posts when the arkonauts get going.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Bonobojones, posted 02-01-2005 8:45 AM Bonobojones has not replied

tsig
Member (Idle past 2929 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 249 of 296 (182373)
02-01-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Bonobojones
01-31-2005 9:02 PM


Testing
I see a lot of numbers being tossed about about hull bending and such, but they do not seem to be used by anyone here who has actually built a wooden boat or been involved in designing one.I have been messing about in boats for the last 40 of my 52 years, and working in design and construction of vessels since '88, so I have some small knowledge of the topic.
The ancient Greeks and Romans built some nice boats, as did the Egyptians, but we have yet to find anything the size the ark is supposed to have been. 19th century ship builders discovered that a large vessel HAD to be reinforced with metal. Bronze floors, metal disgonals, etc. This is never shown in ancient ship building.
Let's just touch upon the backbone. Just the sheer size of the molding and siding of such a timber would have required a huge tree. It could not have been laminated due to the lack of any sort of structural adhesive. To get the length required would have involved multiple scarph joins, secured with, most likely trunnels, as archaeological evidence suggests from contemporary sources.
Any hull, wood, glass or steel, works in a seaway. All the forces are directed to the weakest part of the whole. This is why boats often leak at the deck joints and why deck joints and cabin/deck joints fail, often with catastrophic results under severe condidtions. (and the Flood would have been severe, due to the enormous fetch.)She would have worked so much, her seams would open to the sea and no family of 8 could bail her fast enough even with modern dewatering devices.
The Ark would have been totally at the mercy of the seas, without directional control or any way to provide thrust to keep her from broaching.
In short, I can't see it happening. Besides the fact that there is no evidence on the earth of a world wide Delude.
Great post. I offered Humm a method of testing the stresses involved, it's similar to one we did in S of M class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Bonobojones, posted 01-31-2005 9:02 PM Bonobojones has not replied

gBen
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 296 (182787)
02-03-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Bonobojones
01-31-2005 9:02 PM


Bonobo can't figure it out
Bonobo, you are so stuck in your past, you can't see the current discussion.
1. Tell me anywhere in the Bible that says what Noah's occupation was. It certaintly wasn't goatherder, that is your ignorant predjudice talking. The Bible only talks about him being spoken to by God, raising three sons, building the Ark, surviving the flood, sending the birds, building an altar and sacrificing, planting a vinyard and getting drunk. (NT also mentions him preaching)
2. Your predjudice colors your expectations of materials available, in at least two areas. First, throughout this discussion, you, John, and others, have repeatedly claimed Noah didn't have iron to use. That is blatantly FALSE. Two chapters ahead of the Ark project, we find a craftsman in the family line of Cain called Tubal-Cain, 6th generation from Adam(i.e. Noah's great granduncle, 6 times removed). Genesis 4:22 " And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and IRON. ..."
Secondly, we find in the previous verse(21) Tubal-Cain's brother Jubal described as "the father of all those who play the harp and flute". While many musical instruments can be very primitive, they also can become rapidly very sophisticated. I would use this to challenge your claim they could have had no adhesives.
3. You continually confuse your picture of human timelines over the biblical timeline that includes the Ark. By the nature of the unique destructive nature of the global Cataclysm known as the Noah's Flood, ALL prior human cultural evidences were wiped from the face of the earth, with only a few possible exceptions(I will not discuss that last part under this topic). Thus, IF we are discussing the Biblical Ark as possible, it would seem relevant to use the Biblical timeline, which claims that ALL humans now living, and their cultures, descended from the Ark survivors, and spread from Babel across the earth, with a massive bottleneck at this point in time. Nothing really controversial there, IF you work it all within THIS framework. HISTORY only dates from writing, and that dates from Mesopotamia. I don't care if you call it 4500 years ago, 10,000 years ago, or however long you want to torture the biblical dating, ALL the relevant archaeological cultural and technological growth patterns fall AFTER eight people get off the Ark and proceed to restart civilization. The children and g-()-grandchildren of these eight people built Babel, Egypt, the 7 wonders of the world, they built the Megalithic structures with stones WE can't move, with fitting tolerances we STILL can't match on that scale. People scattering across the landscape for the first few generations after Babel would be in a technological black hole, reduced to living in caves, hunting for animals, following the herds, finding new sources of ores and minerals to even BEGIN to rebuild whatever they could pass on to their children.
What knowledge did they have before that was lost? Compare this to the corrupted text of Gilgamesh, a several generations later ruler/hero who claims to have met the man who built the Ark, then wrote down his version in an epic tale format, as secondary to his own adventures. This 'ruler' didn't even previously know the specifics he claimed to have written down from Noah. It was information that was not passed down through the generations (By the way, if you thing riding the Noah's ark was rough, what would it have been like to ride it out in the 9 story tall CUBE Gilgamesh claimed??? I believe (referencing earlier posts in this thread, he would have been wearing more beer that he drank). How many on this thread sucessfully pass All the info they know to their children? Especially if they are hard-headed, think they know it all, and see no evidence of the 'golden world' their forebearers describe.
4. You are still stuck in your rut talking about a backbone(keel), which links to your powered ships that act like a bundle of reeds. The rest of the thread is talking about a box/girder/slab-sided construction in an UNpowered craft. Your 'instincts' are failing you like an earth-raised person trying to run on the Moon. You are trying to stay with box-kite airplanes in a spruce-goose world with monocoque construction and cantilevered wings. You have potentially helpful knowledge to add to the research for possibilities, but you do nothing but harp on misconceptions you have been told several times are completely incorrect for this particular project.
Go look at barns and houses built centuries ago, and still standing through floods and earthquakes. They usually only fail when the foundation goes, or minimal maintenance is not kept up. Check on the farm-building techniques of 200 years ago, when they knew how to season wood under water for one winter or more before using it, built houses and mills with single families, and occasional help from neighbors, even building barns of timber that would easily match the size of the Ark. http://www.chc.state.ct.us/sloanestanleymuseum.htm Check out the truss bridges that are standing, and working, from nearly a century ago or are still being built, such as: http://www.siouxnarrowsbridge.org/history.html
Or The resource cannot be found. with the new longest span of 71 meters! I think it's very interesting how this come so close to those 'numbers' your opponents are 'throwing around' in this thread.
5. You ask for numbers, stress calculations, experiments, etc, however, when someone provides them to you, you just storm off in a ranting hissy fit, NEVER acknowledging any progress on the part of the person providing the numbers, muttering "Besides the fact that there is no evidence on the earth of a world wide Delude."
You are deluding yourself that you are 'scientific', flexible, adaptable to change, yet you cannot even begin to function within a simple alternate paradigm. Your current attitude would never suffer anyone else to be right, and the Ark would never float in your mind, even if it floated up right in front of your face.
Try this attitude for a change, adopting the STARTING point of this thread, HOW could it have been built, not how could you KEEP it from being built!
gBen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Bonobojones, posted 01-31-2005 9:02 PM Bonobojones has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Bonobojones, posted 02-03-2005 9:36 AM gBen has not replied
 Message 253 by FliesOnly, posted 02-03-2005 3:35 PM gBen has not replied
 Message 254 by Bonobojones, posted 02-03-2005 5:32 PM gBen has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 251 of 296 (182814)
02-03-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by gBen
02-03-2005 8:16 AM


Re: Bonobo can't figure it out
Nice rant.
No support for your claims.
I'll get back to you late after I've had some time to digest what you are saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by gBen, posted 02-03-2005 8:16 AM gBen has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 296 (182839)
02-03-2005 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Bonobojones
01-31-2005 9:02 PM


Ac tually there was a thread recently arguing that some Japanese researchers had shown a (notional) ark hull to be an "optimal" design. Should still be around somewhere. Please note I am not endorsing the theory, but it was an attemptm to argue for a practical boat.
This message has been edited by contracycle, 02-03-2005 10:28 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Bonobojones, posted 01-31-2005 9:02 PM Bonobojones has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4166 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 253 of 296 (182913)
02-03-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by gBen
02-03-2005 8:16 AM


Re: Bonobo can't figure it out
Hi gBen:
gBen writes:
with the new longest span of 71 meters!
What...are you suggecting Noah floated around on a bridge for a year?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by gBen, posted 02-03-2005 8:16 AM gBen has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 296 (182929)
02-03-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by gBen
02-03-2005 8:16 AM


Re: Bonobo can't figure it out
O.K. I've had some time to read your, rather angry, post. Instead of taking up space quoting the entire tirade, I'll just briefly answer your points.
Point 1. Ayah, you're right. Nowhere does it say what Noah did before the flud. It also does not say he wasn't a goat herder and it for sure doesn't say he was a boat builder. So what.
Ignorant prejudice, you say. We have met? You know me? Then you know I'm a Jew, right? I think I know our book.
Point 2. It is the dating by Bishop Ussher that you guys use to determine when the Great Delude took place. The Bronze Age. Do you have a timeline other than Ussher's you'd like to use? Give us some dates, please.
Now we all know that the OT wasn't actually written until around the time of the Babylonian Captivity, so one can expect anachronisms. There is nothing at all in the archaeological evidence to show any boats being built with iron 4500 years ago. I am afraid your sources are in error.
They had no marine adhesives. Yeah, there were simple glues, but would you trust a primitive glue, made from animal products, to hold together a laminated keel or framework? I know I wouldn't. It wasn't until Resorcinol and epoxies came along that laminating for the marine environment became practical. (Oh, and 100,000 years ago men were also making musical instruments.)
Point 3. ...human timelines over the biblical timeline...? Do you mean history over myth? If all human cultural evidence was wiped out by the flood, how come the Old Kingdom of Egypt was blissfully unaware of the cataclysm?
Relevant to use biblical timelines over history? Well, since we are talking about a mythical event, well....
Yup, the Bible claims we are all decended form Noah's kids, so we should see a genetic bottleneck about 6000 years ago,eh. Where is it. More to the point, where is the geological evidence for the Great Delude?
Ah, Gilgamesh. Great Sumerian myth. Could it be that the ancients, while in Babylon, heard the tale and incorporated it? The rest of your point is drivel.
Point 4. Your ignorance is showing. All wooden vessels, modern and ancient, had some form of backbone. Can't build a large wooden boat without one. You really have no clue as to what you're talking about, do you?
A boat is not a house.(though there are houseboats, but that's a different subject) A boatbuilder can build a good house, but it has been my experience that few house carpenters can build a good boat, without some re-training. Apples and papayas.
Point 5. Hissy fit???
Numbers are only useful when applied in their proper context, eh. I suggest you pick up a copy of Skene's any other good book in design and construction of wooden boats. Skene's is easy to read and even has pictures!
That is the point, isn't it. With the technology they had back then, a 450' floating zoo to house, what, 50 million species, was impossible. It it were possible today, why doesn't Baugh or Hovind use some of their $$ and build one. I'd like to see them do it with 8 inexperienced people.
Tell ya what, bGen, build a boat then get back to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by gBen, posted 02-03-2005 8:16 AM gBen has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 296 (187460)
02-22-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Bonobojones
05-04-2004 1:46 AM


Ark Design
This site has done a lot of design work for an Ark sized wood vessel.
The Flood | Answers in Genesis
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Bonobojones, posted 05-04-2004 1:46 AM Bonobojones has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Bonobojones, posted 02-23-2005 5:34 PM allenroyboy has not replied
 Message 257 by Bonobojones, posted 02-23-2005 5:38 PM allenroyboy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024