Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8987 total)
37 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: Robert Smith
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 877,941 Year: 9,689/23,288 Month: 704/1,544 Week: 96/322 Day: 16/80 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness
iano
Member (Idle past 496 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 121 of 231 (328604)
07-03-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Percy
07-03-2006 12:50 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
If I'm interpreting this correctly, you still intend to argue that Noah had whatever technologies he needed, whether there is evidence for them 5000 years ago or not

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.

I again point out that if the discussion is not based upon evidence then it just comes down to opinion.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Percy, posted 07-03-2006 12:50 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by deerbreh, posted 07-03-2006 5:07 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 126 by Percy, posted 07-03-2006 5:10 PM iano has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1448 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 122 of 231 (328608)
07-03-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by iano
07-03-2006 12:01 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
Your "technology propagates" argument simply points to the technology that has propagated.

You might have a point if we were not talking about something so fundamental as a way of moving water. Water is even more important than food in human societies. It boggles the mind that an invention as useful as Archimedes Screw or its equivalent wouldn't have been utilized by the generations following Noah.

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.

First of all, you are conveniently adding to scripture to buttress your position. My Bible says that God conceived AND designed the Ark and told Noah how to proceed. There is no mention of consulting engineers. Damn shabby of Noah to let them drown, by the way. Besides if he were such a klutz you would think he would have taken at least one with him to fix things. Secondly, you have been maintaining all along that these are simple solutions and that is why Noah would have thought of them. Now you are suddenly saying they are so complex that they couldn't have been copied by Noah's clan. Which is it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 12:01 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 4:09 PM deerbreh has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 496 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 123 of 231 (328614)
07-03-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by deerbreh
07-03-2006 3:50 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
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 days

Secondly 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

First of all, you are conveniently adding to scripture to buttress your position. My Bible says that God conceived AND designed the Ark and told Noah how to proceed.

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 design

Fixing 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 :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by deerbreh, posted 07-03-2006 3:50 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by deerbreh, posted 07-03-2006 4:52 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 127 by Iblis, posted 07-03-2006 8:38 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 128 by lfen, posted 07-04-2006 2:59 PM iano has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1448 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 124 of 231 (328618)
07-03-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by iano
07-03-2006 4:09 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
Firstly, I am not supposing water being pumped. That supposes leaks which I do not

Denial is a wonderful thing, is it not? A 450 foot wooden boat packed to the decks with animals, food and supplies in water rough enough to run your manure "pumps" is going to leak before it breaks apart completely.

I am talking semi-solid sludge from animal waste - this is far easier to pump than water

I will inform my dairy farmer friends. They will be extremely pleased to hear this little known "fact". Have you even ever been on a farm and seen a liquid manure disposal system in operation?

This train is a dead end for you Deerbrah. Why might the technology not have propagated. Who knows? We can only speculate

First of all it is not MY train - it is YOUR train. It was dead before you started. And there is no need to speculate about why the technology was not propagated when you have not established that there was any technology to propogate. Therein lies the speculation.

And it has not escaped my notice that you completely blew off my question of why Noah suddenly became a klutz and needs consulting engineers when before you were claiming that the pump technology was so simple that anyone with "intelligence and simple materials" could figure it out. If Noah is suddenly such a dummy how did he manage the Ark project?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 4:09 PM iano has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 1448 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 125 of 231 (328623)
07-03-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by iano
07-03-2006 3:48 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
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.

A ocean going 450 foot wooden boat is not high tech???? OK. Denial is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

A lever is basic yes, getting it to pump liquid manure, no.
A wheel is actually just a lever operating around a fulcrum as well. But I hardly think that it is "basic" if that means simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 3:48 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 126 of 231 (328628)
07-03-2006 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by iano
07-03-2006 3:48 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
iano writes:

If I'm interpreting this correctly, you still intend to argue that Noah had whatever technologies he needed, whether there is evidence for them 5000 years ago or not

Whilst you might suggest "any technology at all" I do not. A boat (think float) is not hi-tech.

I'm not sure why you put a phrase I didn't say between quotes, but anyway, I again suggest that you argue from evidence. The design requirements for the ark were that it be able to carry representatives of all animal species for nearly a year in violent waters, and if you don't believe this imposed very sophisticated technology requirements for 5000 years ago, then you must do more than simply assert or assume it. Otherwise we're left with you saying, "Designing and building an ark is simple," and other's replying "No, it isn't." Not a very enlightening discussion.

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.

The history of technology would seem to point in another direction. The lesson of history seems to be that new technologies build on existing technologies, and that new ideas build upon existing ideas. Technology development is primarily evolutionary and rarely revolutionary. To make your argument you need some examples of technological revolution, i.e., ideas and technologies that sprang forth almost out of thin air. From a modern perspective the technologies and applications you mention may seem obvious, but they are anything but.

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.

You quoted rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines. I wrote the Forum Guidelines. The reason for the "and/or" was just a nod to the fact that during a discussion some posts might contain evidence, some argument, and some both. It wasn't meant to imply that one could in any valid way just stake out a position absent of evidence.

I often advise members that we have worked hard to keep the Forum Guidelines down to 10, and that for that reason they should work to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the Forum Guidelines. Trust me, nothing in the Forum Guidelines was meant to imply that positions could be argued absent of evidence. This forum is one of the science forums, and evidence is a key requirement for any scientifically valid position.

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.

I think it would be a good idea if you would get more specific first. What kind of pump are you proposing? You seemed to proposing a piston style at one point, which was fairly sophistated for 1500 AD, let along 3000 BC. Then I saw mention of an Archimedes screw approach, but maybe that wasn't you. If you can be more specific then the evidence supporting the possibility of use of that technology 5000 years ago can be discussed.

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!

You keep bringing this up in your replies to me, so I'm finally going to answer, but only to suggest that you raise this issue with the person who posted these arguments to you.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 3:48 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 2451 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 127 of 231 (328682)
07-03-2006 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by iano
07-03-2006 4:09 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
semi-solid sludge from animal waste - this is far easier to pump than water

I don't understand, if it's not a water pump what kind of pump is it? Like a bicycle pump, something that turns force into air-pressure? That's insane, the substances that the components have to made out of weren't even invented, the damned dinosaurs the substances are derived from wouldn't even have drowned yet. Reeds and pitch and some kind of notched ramrod wont do it, you just end up with tarry shrapnel everywhere. Air pressure is much MUCH harder to manage than water pressure.

The whole reason the standard water-pump got invented in the first place is that water has a strict obvious compression limit. When you push it hard enough it suddenly pushes back even harder. This is the same principle that causes soda cans in the freezer to bust open. It's how a plunger works! So we can vaguely allow that the primitive mind might have some understanding of these principles. It's the sort of thing that people with even exceptionally low IQs can learn in special ed and eventually make a career out of as say, a plumber's helper.

So why can't you get it yourself? How old are you? Are you saying that low-flow toilets work better than the old standard flush? Are you saying that it's easier to siphon fresh dung than gasoline? I have to assume you have never had a fish tank even.

...

Anyway, those of you of the 4004 inclination who have been optimistically supporting this travesty because anything is better than no answer, obviously the real trick will have to be the gopher wood. It's called that because it has visible holes in it, it's a very large porous wood, something like grass only towering tree size, maybe a super-bamboo with extra-spongey qualities and possibly some trick action such as has been known to develop among other water-sensitive plants. Even among normal modern porous plants you get this basic effect, the pores let water in but as the wood gets soaked it expands and closes the pores. Only with the gopher wood this will have to be a whole primary specialization, it will have to be a big pump tree basically.

You cut the wood and build your boat so that the outer barky part is facing out and the inner livewood part is facing in. You seal the places where it joins with your pitch and nevermind the leaks. There's going to be water running down and pooling up in the bottom of your boat continually. Even though the pores close when they are wet a certain amount of water gets through, don't worry about it. It pools up at the bottom of the boat along with all the flotsam and jetsam you care to include in the stream. Dung will be fine.

Anyway periodically at the sides and even the bottom, as a result of the differences in the motion of the individual points comprising a floating, rocking rolling object, there will be points where the water pressure will suddenly rapidly decrease for individual pores. Imagining being a little downward-leaning pore on the side of the boat when the part you are at is moving rapidly upward compared to the water, at the top of each arc. Anyway if there is water pooling up there in a trough on that side of the boat, there might even be a point where the pressure inside is actually greater than the pressure outside.

At this moment the magic gopher wood pore bursts back open to full size briefly, releasing as much liquid and particles as it can, before slamming shut again as the stuff resoaks the pore from the inside out. Down at the very bottom this will happen even more often, it wont depend on slant and kinds of linear motion, every time the boat rocks back and forth with this ever-moving bog sloshing around in it, there will be points where individual pores reverse briefly due to greater pressure within than without.

Sadly, all the gopher wood in existence had to be used to make the boat. And that's why gophers don't live in trees like the other squirrels.

...

This train is a dead end for you

If there's anyone of a scientific bent still looking longingly at wave-power for a free-floating object, here's the deal. Any number of patents have been applied for and received using this principle. They always work fine for the scale model. My favorite is a dealie called the "water-wings" that flap up and down on each side of the little boat and thereby generate enough power to turn a little prop in the back that will send the model faster and faster across any public pond until it either gets to the other side, tears itself apart, or else reaches a maximum speed arranged by the designer with some sort of auto-brake.

Sadly, all the little model wave-driven engines of every kind (including the neat rocking-pack generator recently developed to help our students in the extended financial-aid program there keep their little flashlights charged while they run screaming through the desert) they all depend on using a given amount of surface to affect a given amount of mass. That means that, like people and animals, they dont scale properly.

Let's look at the water-wings again. We don't need a big closed zoological battleship to start with, a rowboat will be fine. Our scale model is 3 feet by 2 feet by 1 foot high. The wings on each side are 1 foot by 1 foot. And it works fine! We will allow that such a thing could pump itself out in good weather. We will ignore the actual functioning of the pump itself entirely, it can be a very modern bicycle pump. The generator that transfers the energy from the wings to the little boat can be a bicycle wheel. It doesn't matter. We will allow that the 1 square foot surface of these wings gets from the water enough force to keep 6 cubic feet of little boat tolerably dry inside. We will allow the 1 square inch surface of the plunger in the bicycle pump is sufficient to properly apply this force to the water and get it completely out of the boat. Whichever details we start with, this happens to us.

When we make our little boat twice as big, it is now 6 feet long, 4 feet wide, 2 feet high. We could get in and row! our wings are 4 square feet, our pumpbit is 4 square inches, but our volume is now 48 cubic feet. If our boat weighed ten pounds before, it now weighs not 20 pounds, not 40 pounds, but 80 pounds! In order for our wings to parlay the power to do the pumping they need to be not just 4 square feet but 8! They will have to be twice as long again, instead of flat square things they are long rectangular things sticking out the side. And the pump itself has to be bigger again also so that total surface will make 8 square inches, to push the water, the 48 cubic feet of water there in the 80 pound boat trying to thrash around harder and harder to keep dry. With the wings sticking out there our width is actually greater than our length, and we have only doubled once so far.

Let's make it 12 feet long, 8 feet wide, 4 feet high! Now we need 64 square feet of surface for our wings, 64 square inches of push in our pump, and our boat, separate from the long floaty wings and the enormous throbbing pump, weighs 640 pounds.

What it comes down to is that if your floaty-motor gets to be much bigger than a breadbox it gets out of scale to perform whatever its function is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 4:09 PM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Coragyps, posted 07-04-2006 5:53 PM Iblis has not yet responded

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 3233 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 128 of 231 (328792)
07-04-2006 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by iano
07-03-2006 4:09 PM


pumping that old semi-solid sludge
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 days

:laugh: Oh, yeah, talk about semi-solid sludge from animal waste being easy to pump!:laugh:

In the states we talk about someone "shoveling bullsh__" but you Ian have more than amply demonstrated a virtuosic ability to pump the ole semi-solid sludge like a maestro!

Somehow I never got the impression that Noah could shovel or pump animal waste with anything near your facility though.:eek: On the other hand whether by shovel, pump, or hand, bs'ing goes back to the dawn of language.

Okay, now that I'm weak from laughter I'll cooperate. I'm ready for my meds, and Admins can come and take me away and put me in the suspended straitjacket for a spell and hopefully I'll recover.:laugh: It's just Ian, you are being too funny!!!!

lfen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 4:09 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5513
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 129 of 231 (328830)
07-04-2006 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Iblis
07-03-2006 8:38 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
Brilliant summary of the properties of gopherwood, Iblis! Those properties together with its tensile strength being greater than that of titanium-carbon nanofiber composites explains it all!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Iblis, posted 07-03-2006 8:38 PM Iblis has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 475 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 130 of 231 (328921)
07-05-2006 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
06-28-2006 10:53 AM


A wooden vessel of the size speculated for the Ark might have been possible, and might have been sea worthy, if Noah had the technology and body of knowledge of the ship builders of the late 1800s.

Or a blueprint from God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 06-28-2006 10:53 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by CK, posted 07-05-2006 10:49 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 132 by jar, posted 07-05-2006 11:17 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded
 Message 144 by Randy, posted 07-06-2006 8:23 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2683 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 131 of 231 (328922)
07-05-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by riVeRraT
07-05-2006 10:46 AM


Once you get into that sort of reasoning - why do you even NEED an ark - why doesn't God just POOF all the evildoers away or just transform the world into it's post-flood state with just Noah, his family and his Dinos, dodos and other required Kindas*

* "kinda" = Well it's Kinda like a handwaving term.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by riVeRraT, posted 07-05-2006 10:46 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32679
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 132 of 231 (328930)
07-05-2006 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by riVeRraT
07-05-2006 10:46 AM


jar writes:

A wooden vessel of the size speculated for the Ark might have been possible, and might have been sea worthy, if Noah had the technology and body of knowledge of the ship builders of the late 1800s.

to which riVeRraT replied

quote:
Or a blueprint from God.

The blueprint from GOD would not be much help. Having the design or blueprints does not mean that one has the materials, skill, toolset or capability of actually building what is in the blueprint.

There are some examples that are known and that can be looked at for comparisons purposes. There were the Mersey and Victoria class wooden battle ships that reached a length of about 340 feet, but they proved to be unstable and not very sea worthy and all were retired very shortly after being built. In addition, both designs had the advantage of using steel straping and internal supports, technologies that would not have been available to Noah.

There is the example of the fabled Chinese Treasure ships of the Ming Dynasty, but even these ships were only about 400 feet long, considerably shorter than the 450 feet of the alleged Ark. Those ships, like the fabled Ark, are known only from historical documents and nothing has ever been found that would suggest they actually existed or were used. The fact that much later designs, those from the European shipbuilders of about 500 year after the Ming Dynasty seem to indicate that a wooden ship of about 340-350 feet length was reaching the structural limits of wood ships even with the advantages of materails and technology not available 500 years earlier, seem to indicate that a ship 450 feet long is very unlikely around 2500BC or so.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by riVeRraT, posted 07-05-2006 10:46 AM riVeRraT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 07-05-2006 12:16 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19846
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 133 of 231 (328953)
07-05-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by jar
07-05-2006 11:17 AM


Anyone who's ever in Stockholm, do not fail to visit the Wasa.

The Wasa was a Swedish warship that sank leaving the Stockholm harbor while heading for its maiden shakedown cruise in 1628. About shipbuilding for the period, the pamphlet from my own visit says:

"In those days there was no such thing as drawings. Instead one used what was known as a ship's reckoning, which contains a fairly comprehensive digest of facts and figures on the ship's main dimensions and principal construction details. For the rest it was up to the professional skill of the shipwright himself to ensure that the vessel embodied the required from and lines."

The Wasa was located in 1956 and eventually raised for display in the Wasa Museum, all 200 feet of it, a very large ship for its day. The museum contains much more information about shipbuilding than the pamphlet. Shipbuilding was not a true science in those days. It was more an artform that progressed one small innovation at a time, a drawn out process of trial and error where hopefully the errors were not too great. In the main, attempted unsuccessful innovations resulted in ships that were difficult to maneuver or which sat too deep in the water or which couldn't carry the full complement of guns originally intended, small issues that only governed the type of tasks assigned the ship and that could be corrected in future shipbuilding. But some errors of innovation were disasters.

My pamphlet indicates that the admiral of the fleet performed stability testing by having 30 men run back and forth across the deck in unison, but after just three trips the test had to be halted because the ship was rolling so much it threatened to capsize. At the museum it told how as the day of the first voyage approached the ship's captain was so uncertain about the ships stability that he ordered many tons more ballast be added. This was all for naught, because as the ship emerged from the wind shadow of a harbor island a crosswind caught the sails, turning it over and sinking it with all hands in a matter of minutes.

The Wasa had two gun decks, not uncommon for the time, but the Swedish king wanted the Wasa to be one of the most powerful ships of its time, and so the upper gun deck had heavy guns instead of small ones. This was the greatest contribution to the ship's instability. Naturally the problems of stability with heavy guns on multiple gun decks was addressed better and better over time, as witness the later ships with three heavy gun decks, but the lessons had to be learned first, and the Wasa was a significant lesson.

Without addressing any specific issue regarding the ark of Noah, it is utterly clear without any doubt that the task of building a 450 foot wooden ship, longer than any wooden ship ever built, would have represented an extreme technical challenge not just for that period, but for any period, including this one.

--Percy

AbE - Turns out I have two pamphlets about the Wasa. This is from the other pamphlet:

"Instead, the reason for the disaster must be sought in the defective theoretical know-how of the period. Seventeenth-century shipbuilders were incapable of making construction drawings or mathematical calculations of stability. The only recourse of the shipbuilder was to a table of figures, the ship's reckoning, which recorded certain ship measurements. The reckoning was often a well-kept secret - something a father passed on to his son. thus, a new ship was often modelled on its predecessor.

But this ship was different. The Wasa was more massive, and had more heavy guns, than previous ships. The great, beautiful warship was too large and too strong; as a result, she was an experiment. It was not uncommon in olden days - nor, as we know, today - for bold innovations to fail.

Edited by Percy, : Add excerpt from other pamphlet.

Edited by Percy, : Fix grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by jar, posted 07-05-2006 11:17 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by riVeRraT, posted 07-05-2006 10:24 PM Percy has responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 475 days)
Posts: 5746
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 134 of 231 (329115)
07-05-2006 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
07-05-2006 12:16 PM


Without addressing any specific issue regarding the ark of Noah, it is utterly clear without any doubt that the task of building a 450 foot wooden ship, longer than any wooden ship ever built, would have represented an extreme technical challenge not just for that period, but for any period, including this one.

Wouldn't that depend on the wood being used?
This wood, I think:
hardwood
Is a wood so hard that you wear out drill bits trying to drill through it. It also is heavy and would sit lower in the water increasing stability. I don't know if it was possible that Noah had access to wood like this.

I also saw a show where they took a model of the ark, and compared to a model of a super tanker, and put them through scale storms. The ark held up better than the supertanker, and would not roll, or sink. The only way it could flip is end over end. They used the testing tank used to test ocean going ships designs.

Also, Noah's ark had no heavy guns, and may not have been top heavy at all with the heavier animals in the bottom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 07-05-2006 12:16 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 07-05-2006 10:42 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 137 by ohnhai, posted 07-05-2006 10:45 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 07-05-2006 10:55 PM riVeRraT has responded
 Message 143 by Percy, posted 07-06-2006 6:31 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
ohnhai
Member (Idle past 3717 days)
Posts: 649
From: Melbourne, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2004


Message 135 of 231 (329119)
07-05-2006 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by deerbreh
06-28-2006 9:53 AM


Re: The Ark in Frostburg Maryland
Just looked at the site..

So in no way a serious attempt to answer the validity of the ark as a seaworthy vessel, just a cynical extractor of money from the gullible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by deerbreh, posted 06-28-2006 9:53 AM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020