Pitching (front-to-back) and rolling (side-to-side). Both provide the up and down motion (perpendicularily) relative to the surface of the water needed to drive a pump.
There have been wooden boats around for hundreds of years (and yes, all of them leak). A hundred years ago or so, there were quite a lot of them, with quite sophisticated technology. If your "perpetual motion" pump is so blessed simple, why do you suppose nobody thought of it before?
You did. You seem to think you can get free energy from wave motion, just like Wile E. Coyote powers his sailboat with a fan.
It has been explained to you that a boat has very little motion relative to the surrounding water (and what little relative motion there is is too randomly directed to be harnessed by simple machinery).
I ask again: if it's so simple, why hasn't it been done before?
I've just provided a perfectly acceptable working design for pump actuation.
Not good enough. This is a science forum. We need a demonstration that the pump is workable, not just a speculation. I could just as easily provide a "perfectly acceptable working design" for Santa's flying sled.
It ain't "acceptable" unless it is working.
I ask again: if it's possible, why hasn't it been done?
Given the arks breadth even 1 degree of roll would provide sufficient stroke for Noahs pump
In that case, you're looking at way too long a stroke. I've been on a boat with 20 degrees of roll. How long a pump rod would you need? (Not to mention the elephants rolling back and forth. Your machinery would have to be pretty robust.)
The period of roll involved with the ark would be slooooooooow.
I've been on ships the size of the ark. I'd say a few seconds in a calm sea.
Of course, the slower the pump stroke, the more problems you have with your seals.
A normal bilge pump has to pump water which is a different matter altogether than semi-solid sludge.
I don't know where you get this "semi-solid sludge" nonsense. Fresh manure would take a lot of water to make it pumpable - and the bedding, etc. would gum up the pumps in no time. That's why they clean out barns with a front-end loader, not a pump.
And you still haven't addressed the problem of the bilge pumps.
Have you ever been in a fiberglass canoe? No seams, no leakage - yet they still take on water. Why is that, do you think?
A fishing boat's bow will dive right under, even in a moderate sea. The decks are always awash. How do you propose to deal with the water that inevitably comes in through the ventilators? (A Canadian submarine had a nasty accident of that sort off your coast a while back.)
Then everyone who has helped along the way dies. The technology dies with it.
The problem with that excuse is that if the technology is so simple, it should have been invented over and over and over again throughout history. You are not postulating a "simple" technology at all - you are postulating a technology that was dreamed up once and then lost for centuries.
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.
That's exactly what you're being asked to do: show us that your design will work - either with a historical example or a prototype. So far, what you've given us is not an "engineering method" - it's science fiction.
The ark held up better than the supertanker, and would not roll, or sink. The only way it could flip is end over end.
First you said it would rather pitch than roll? Now you say it would rather roll than pitch?
It seems pretty obvious that a ship with a length:beam ratio of 6:1 would roll over long before it would pitch over. It also seems pretty obvious that any ship will roll over and/or sink if the wave conditions are severe enough.
In summary, it seems pretty obvious that either your recollection of the demonstration is worthless as evidence, or the demonstration itself was worthless as evidence.
Harps are coated with pitch resins yet they flex (vibrate)its why harps are coated with resins.
It seems pretty silly to be comparing a harp to the ark.
There's a big difference in frequency between a harp's musical vibrations and an ocean wave. There's also a big difference in amplitude.
If pitch works in one case, there is no reason to assume it will also work in the other.
(This would be an excellent oppurtunity for you to do what no other creationist has done yet - show examples from history where your "miracle pitch" was actually used in shipbuilding, with the results you claim.)