The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness

It did not need to be available. It needed to be thought up. And it is simple technology. Then everyone who has helped along the way dies. The technology dies with it. Now your left with a very few people who know the technology. It is their choice whether to propagate it or not. There is no particular reason why they should. Sure it makes life 'easier'. But as many who seek to escape from the technological world we have created have found out - technology is a double edged sword. Easier doesn't always mean good.

We weren't disucussing the ark itself. We were discussing a simple pump. And in invoking 21st century engineering concepts you sidestep the engineering method ("suck it and see") which is all that is required to make said pump.I wrote in response to Percy above that the operating pressure (excl losses) need not be anything more than 0.6 Bar or so. You are not going to tell me that this requires involved calcuations as to "burst strength" and "thermal analysis" are you?

Your "technology propagates" argument simply points to the technology that has propagated. Any technology that hasn't - for whatever reason, propagated, hasn't - and we will not have evidence for it - for it did not propagate. Your argument seems to use the idea: "that which happened is that which happened" It pushes to far to say that "that is the only thing that can happen"For example: the mind that conceived of the ark and the minds that generated solutions which built it might as easily be amongst those who perished. For all we know Noah & Sons might have had two left hands when it came to things engineering.

There are other ways to show. If Paisano (who strikes me as an engineer) were to say that there is nothing standing in the way of such a pump given intelligence and basic materials then you might be satisfied. You probably wouldn't be but I would consider my case rested

On the matter of the ark itself.My uncle used to work as an aircrash investigator in the States (gruesome job). He once had a converstation with the CEO of Boeing who told him that he reckoned that it was no problem to make an aeroplane that would not fall out of the sky due to any failure or lack on the part of engineering. But that nobody could afford to fly in such a plane. Deaths were accepted because it made it possible for millions to fly in relative safety.The technology developed by Nelsons ship builder was part influenced by the fact that they were operating within financial constraints. Every solution they thought off was couched in this framework. There is no point in dreaming up unstoppable battleships that no one can afford to build.With Noah we have no idea as to his means. We cannot comment either way. If not so constrained then he has a bit of a jump on Nelsons boatbuilders.

I have "wood and intelligence". This is consistant with what we might suppose of his timesWhat do you need - then we can compareEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Whilst you might suggest "any technology at all" I do not. A boat (think float) is not hi-tech. A lever operating around a fulcrum is about as basic as it comes. Each element is so simple as to make silly argument that it absolutely must take millenia in order to connect a few of these ideas together. Every principle involved can observed in the normal goings on the world around at what might be reasonably be expected of that time.

quote:

---

Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

---

Reasoned argument? There is absolutely nothing going on here that requires millenia-evolved technology. Not one piece of it. Folk may say it is required but they cannot point to one element of the pump that requires it. Wood and intelligence (applied on a suck it and see basis) is all that is required and I am not being unreasonable in supposing those. Does one have to go proving people being capable of simple ideas? Seems so around here.If someone wants to point out practical difficulties that render such a pump inoperable and solutions required to circumvent those problems require a shift to higher level technology than can be reasonably expected then they are free to do so. Just don't go asking for "thermal analysis" and "calculus" and thermodynamics - that is a more a sign of desparation than anything else (and if you don't believe me, look at what the Romans achieved in the area of mechanics without a sniff of those skills). In return I promise I won't invoke "silicon chip" when it comes to timing the closure of a one way flap which would be required of such a pump!(note: an idea is not technology - its an idea). Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Firstly, I am not supposing water being pumped. That supposes leaks which I do not. I am talking semi-solid sludge from animal waste - this is far easier to pump than water - the tolerances required being within the scope of someone in those daysSecondly this pump makes use of the rolling of a large vessel. On land where does one get the power in such a way as to make such a system better than far simpler systems available? We know the power of "needs must" the greatest technological advances occur in relatively short periods of need known as War. An impending flood would focus the mind somewhat more.Ample power means the pump can be made sizeable enough in order that losses and leakage don't result in a non-result. I don't suggest that it is all that efficient - it simply removes the need for that which is in short supply: manpower. If plenty of manpower then use pack animals or men to bail the thing out. There is no need to come up with ideas so ideas have less reason to come up Mine doesn't. God told Noah the overall dimensions and the material from which it was to be made and that it should be waterproofed. God was the client. Someone else turned the clients wish into a reality. it need not have been Noah who did the detail designFixing things? Well-made designs which are kept simple tend not to need repair. In my experience anyway. It only had to last a year and need not have worked the whole time. Certainly one could get around repair by including enough pumps to more than go round. "When you need to bring in a new pump Noah, pull the pin marked "New Pump Activation Pin" Even a klutz could manage that...This train is a dead end for you Deerbrah. Why might the technology not have propagated. Who knows? We can only speculate

I don't see why the ark would have to be self righting at all. Why let it roll over in the first place? A look a the density of wood shows us that we would be very safe in assuming (and it makes explaining easier) that the arks wood was about as half as dense as water. (the figures here are density relative to water which is 1000 kgs/m³)http://www.simetric.co.uk/si_wood.htmThis means that a solid lump of such wood the size of the ark would float half in/half out of the water. Now excavate large lumps of that, that which is not required in order to provide a strong structure/that is required in order to provide space for the animals. Now airs density is effectively zero. Thus for every animal (approximate density the same as water) you need to excavate twice the animals volume out of the wood in order to maintain the animal filled ark half in/half out of the water.Now add ballast to the bottom of the ark (rocks?) so as to get it to sit lower and lower in the water - say 7/8ths in the water. Thats a lot of ballast.Is such a beast going to capsize? I think not.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

That's the way us engineers work Jar - conceptually.

I persist as you persist. You talk technolgy as if anything here was super-complex going on here. Your appeal to the "history of the advance of technology" seeks to circumvent the fact that any old fool with a boat could see the principles involved. Let me ask you Percy, if you were a kid with a plastic bucket and a sea at your disposal: how long would it take you to figure out that adding a couple of stones in the bottom of the bucket aids seaworthyness no end.Think Occams Razor..

The story circulates in my family about me as a 9 year old (Robin: pay attention here)I can't remember the context, but my father had some reason to ask "is the floor in the sitting room level?" Apparently I disspeared for a minute or two, only to return with a ball bearing which I placed on the floor and discovered that the floor was indeed not level - at least not locally. Veritable mountains existed at floor level was what was discovered.Noah was a little older and wiser by all accounts

Don't know about that. Of the 70 or so fellow students who sat engineering finals with me, there were but two whose final year projecs I would absolutely trust (sight unseen) to function approximately according to the intention of the project-setterB.Mech Eng (hons) is but a title. It confers no true engineering ability. Think of all those who claim Christianity and you'd get the gist

This is a science thread DJ and reasoned argument suffices. If most all woods in the world have a density half that of water then the onus is one you to come up with a reason to think gopherwood is summit else My, you are getting desparate... If I have to provide calculations for the nose on your face then you are talking to the wrong person DJ. This is a debate forum - not analgazing.

If I were building a boat of the arks dimensions then I wouldn't build it as I suppose it would have been built. Me? I would have welded it together. Needs must.