The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness

Don't think so. At very least I'd need to see more details of your proposed linkage to see if it's even statically determinate, much less will transfer force as you envision.Which leaves aside entirely the question of the piston and cylinder element. What materials would it be made out of ? How would the thermal analysis be done such that the device didn't self destruct in use ? Would it be possible to machine such materials to the tolerances required to develop the pressure and flow rates required to clear the ark of bilge water and waste at the required rate ?
All with Bronze Age or early Iron Age technology and no knowledge of calculus, statics, thermodynamics, and strength of materials ? And how was all this advanced naval engineering technology totally lost to history until being redeveloped in the late 18th century ? My objections are based on mechanical engineering. If you want to assert that Noah's society had developed to late 18th century knowledge of science and technology - well, that leads us into the archeological and geological objections to the whole scenario.

I'd be even less of one if I tried to exploit random wave motion to produce a high and constant flow rate.But you might try being less coy, and answering the objections by supplying relevant details, as asked.

Not so amusing when you realize that the size of the boat in question inevitably leads to engineering problems in its construction, stability, and watertight integrity that were comparable to those confronted by the shipbuilders of around 1800.After all you are talking about something bigger than any of the ships of the line in Nelson's fleet, that would have to contend with heavy weather. How Noah would be able to avoid engineeering problems that faced Nelson is far from clear. The most reasonable assumption is that he would need technologies Nelson had access to.Otherwise, that boat won't float. It isn't stable to begin with and capsizes at the first hint of heavy weather. Or its bilges fill rapidly and it sinks. Or it simply breaks up under the hull stress.In addition, as I alluded to, thre are archeological and geological objections to the scenario. Probably biological as well (what about the parasites, what about species that required unique foods, etc.).We are in a science forum. If you are convinced the flood story should be interpreted literally you need to provide scientific or engineering evidence, and answer objections that are raised.Alluding to "possible" technologies won't do at the patent office, and it won't do here.