Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
28 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,989 Year: 19,025/19,786 Month: 1,445/1,705 Week: 251/446 Day: 49/98 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 16 of 453 (520300)
08-20-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
08-20-2009 12:39 AM


Storm is an Understatement
Who said anything about storms, typhoons, or the like.

18 kg per square foot per minute for 40 days and 40 nights is above and beyond the call of duty for anything that could be given the name "storm".


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 08-20-2009 12:39 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 17 of 453 (520302)
08-20-2009 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
08-20-2009 11:23 AM


Re: Storm?
NosyNed writes:

don't remember no storm... just* 40 days and 40 nights of rain. Reference please?

* "just" being something like under Niagara falls.

Interesting. So enough water to flood the entire globe to a depth of 15 cubits above the mountains and it wasn't a storm? I guess "It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath."

Creationists tell us that the gentle rain was violent enough to wash shell fish to the tops of the highest mountains (they're actually in the mountains, but never mind).

But it doesn't matter. There would have been waves and a wooden boat 450 ft. long, sealed with pitch inside and out, would leak all the time. Besides, the cold water would make the pitch brittle and it would crack and, you guessed it, leak.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 08-20-2009 11:23 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 08-20-2009 4:36 PM pandion has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 3007 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 18 of 453 (520304)
08-20-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by pandion
08-20-2009 4:27 PM


Re: Storm?
… the cold water would make the pitch brittle and it would crack…

According to mfaber that cold water would have been 1800°K.


It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
— Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by pandion, posted 08-20-2009 4:27 PM pandion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by pandion, posted 08-20-2009 11:28 PM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 29 by Taz, posted 08-20-2009 11:58 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3220 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 19 of 453 (520313)
08-20-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by RAZD
08-19-2009 8:35 PM


Re: anchor stones away ...
RAZD writes:

This is Wyatt's model of the ark (it's in his "museum") - I've seen a picture showing the stones hanging from the back end. Wan't to guess what they will do in a storm tossed sea?

Entertaining to say the least.

that is entertaining! lol

i've seen that shape in other drawings of the ark and have always wondered why they give it that particular shape when the bible description of its dimensions is nothing like it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2009 8:35 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 3220 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 20 of 453 (520315)
08-20-2009 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by pandion
08-19-2009 12:34 AM


the only problem here is that you are assuming the Ark was built in the same way as a conventional ship.

The measurments of the ark do not show a vessel that is anything like the ships we know.

The measurments are 300 long, 50 wide, and 30 high. Rule up those measurements and you've got a rectangular box with a lenght to depth ratio of 10 to 1 and a length to width ratio of 6 to 1.

It was flat and square. It didnt need a rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat.

What helped it to stay afloat was that it was made out of a resinous tree. This resinous wood is thought by some to be cypress or a similar tree and in that part of the world there was an abundant supply of resinous trees.
The Phoenicians and Alexander the Great used the same type of wood in their ships because it is especially resistant to water and decay. Moses also was told to “cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.”
So it would have been completely waterproof, no 'pumping' would have been required.

Actually, you'd be more familiar with pitching then me, the ark would have needed to be strong enough to resist the tendency to sag under the stress of being lifted by the waves.
The accounts show that the length-to-depth ratio was 10 to 1. Isnt this similar to the ratio modern ship builders use to accommodate such stresses?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pandion, posted 08-19-2009 12:34 AM pandion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 08-20-2009 7:17 PM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 23 by pandion, posted 08-20-2009 8:11 PM Peg has responded
 Message 43 by Huntard, posted 08-21-2009 11:16 AM Peg has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 21 of 453 (520317)
08-20-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by pandion
08-20-2009 10:41 AM


Waves that reach around the world
Hi again pandion,

I'll second what Rahvin said in Message 15

quote:
I'd focus more on your initial observation: that a boat of teh size described in Genesis would exceed the structural limitations of wood.

The point was that any wooden ship over 300 ft in length leaks - all the time. It could not have stayed afloat for a year.

Note that the size of waves are proportional to the reach of the winds as well as their strength. The "roaring 40's" are called that for a reason -- the reach there circles the globe. With a global flood this would be a universal condition. Wind and waves unimpeded as they circle the globe.

The waves that broke up the boats in your OP were peanuts by comparison.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by pandion, posted 08-20-2009 10:41 AM pandion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by pandion, posted 08-20-2009 8:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 22 of 453 (520322)
08-20-2009 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
08-20-2009 6:32 PM


the only problem here is that you are assuming the Ark was built in the same way as a conventional ship.

The measurments of the ark do not show a vessel that is anything like the ships we know.

Irrelevant. Modern shuipbuilding is designed with the express purpose of making the vessel stay afloat...and we don't use a "box" for a reason.

But it doesn't have anything to do with Pandion's point: a boat of that length exceeds the structural capabilities of wood.

Wood is flexible. After a certain length, the natural bending and twisting of the vessel as it rides out even the minor waves of a calm sea cause the planks that make up the hull separate and let water in, ruining any attempts at pitching. TO compensate, you'd need constant pumping to remove the incoming water.

Basically, any boat of that length made of wood is leaky from the day it's launched, period, and you cannot ever seal the leaks because they continually reform. Noah would have absolutely no way to compensate for such leaks. Put bluntly, it is impossible for a boat of that size made of wood to be seaworthy without modern pumping techniques, and even then it cannot be a deep-sea vessel - the risk of being caught in a storm is too great, because the already-stressed hull cannot take stormy waves. It can barely stay afloat with pumps in calm weather.

The measurments are 300 long, 50 wide, and 30 high. Rule up those measurements and you've got a rectangular box with a lenght to depth ratio of 10 to 1 and a length to width ratio of 6 to 1.

The ratio is irrelevant. The issue is the strength of the building materials. For similar reasons that you cannot make a skyscraper out of wood, you cannot make a seaworthy ship of that length out of wood. It's simply not strong enough to deal with the forces involved. It will flex and warp even in calm weather causing continuous leaks. A minor storm will break it apart. The boat will not float.

It was flat and square. It didnt need a rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat.

The shape of a boat, as well as the ability to steer, is of paramount importance to a boat to remain afloat. As has been mentioned earlier, a ship needs to be able to orient itself perpendicular to any approaching waves to present the smallest cross section. A wave that will have no effect on a boat head-on will capsize the same vessel if it washes over from the side. A floating box would quickly be sunk in even a minor storm.

There's a reason we don't make our ships giant floating rectangles with engines. he design isn't seaworthy.

What helped it to stay afloat was that it was made out of a resinous tree. This resinous wood is thought by some to be cypress or a similar tree and in that part of the world there was an abundant supply of resinous trees.
The Phoenicians and Alexander the Great used the same type of wood in their ships because it is especially resistant to water and decay. Moses also was told to “cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.”
So it would have been completely waterproof, no 'pumping' would have been required.

Ypu're missing the point, Peg, as usual. The wood flexes as the boat rides the waves of even a calm sea. This creates shearing forces, as one part of the boat is raised above the rest and teh wave passes beneath the ship.

Let's try a visual aid. Take a peice of paper, and fold it. Now support it from teh bottom with your finger in the middle of the "V" shape you've made.

See how the paper droops on the end? The strnegth of the paper is insufficient to fully support its own weight.

Now try the same thing with a post-it. Notice that there is no drooping, and the "V" shape remains straight.

So too with a wooden boat the size of teh Ark. Wood is simply not strong enough to support the forces involved. Smaller boats don't experience nearly the shearing forces that larger ones do - it's just a simple matter of leverage (the boat is the lever, and the wave is the fulcrum; the lever needs to be strong enough to support its own weight without flexing much regardless of where you place the fulcrum, because waves move the enture length of the ship). The forces the Ark would experience would cause the planks of the hull to warp, bend, and twist back and forth even in calm weather. This movement lets water into the boat. That's why the pumps are necessary - to pump out the leaky water.

Covering the boat inside and out with pitch doesn't make any difference at all - the cracks the pitch seals are constantly bending and twisting, growing and shrinking. You cannot seal that.

In a boat, the planks need to remain close together. If they move too much, no amount of pitch will be sufficient.

Actually, you'd be more familiar with pitching then me, the ark would have needed to be strong enough to resist the tendency to sag under the stress of being lifted by the waves.

This is exactly the force we're talking about. And for a ship above a certain length, wood is not strong enough to handle that stress. The Ark, according to the measurements given, was significantly larger than this hard limit.

The accounts show that the length-to-depth ratio was 10 to 1. Isnt this similar to the ratio modern ship builders use to accommodate such stresses?

It's not about ratios, Peg, it;s about length, leverage, weight, and strength. The width and height of a ship are irrelevant to this concern. If any one dimension is too long, wood will not be strong enough to hold together as the ship rides the waves; the boards will flex and take on water. The sap content of the wood doesn't matter - the wood doesn't pass the water through like a sponge. The pitch doesn't matter - the cracks it seals continually expand and contract beyond the ability of pitch to compensate. The length:width ratio doesn't matter - one dimension exceeds the maximum tolerance for a wooden ship.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 6:32 PM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2009 10:58 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 23 of 453 (520327)
08-20-2009 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
08-20-2009 6:32 PM


Peg writes:

the only problem here is that you are assuming the Ark was built in the same way as a conventional ship.


No I'm not. I'm assuming that it was a big box with none of the modern shipbuilding techniques that helped make them seaworthy.

The measurments of the ark do not show a vessel that is anything like the ships we know.

I know. The Bible describes a big box, no more, no less.

The measurments are 300 long, 50 wide, and 30 high. Rule up those measurements and you've got a rectangular box with a lenght to depth ratio of 10 to 1 and a length to width ratio of 6 to 1.

But it is important to understand that the measurements are cubits, probably either Sumerian or Mesopotamian since that is where the Hebrews got their story of Noah. In that case the ark would have been 510 ft. or 525 ft. long. Most measurements designated as cubits would have made the ark well over 500 ft and the Arabic cubit would have made it 640 ft long.

The ratio of length to width doesn't matter a rat's tootie. The length of the ark would have exceeded the structural ability of the wood. It would have been impossible to keep it rigid. Just the action of floating on the water would have caused the ark to flex in middle and therefore spring the hull. Not even the oakum caulking used at the turn of the 20th century could help on ships longer that 300 ft.

It was flat and square. It didnt need a rounded bottom or sharp bow to cut through the water; it required no steering; its only functions were to be watertight and to stay afloat.

Right. Flat and square and leaky. If it was still afloat when the waves turned it, a wave higher than 50 cubits (not unheard of in the open sea) would have rolled it over.

What helped it to stay afloat was that it was made out of a resinous tree. This resinous wood is thought by some to be cypress or a similar tree and in that part of the world there was an abundant supply of resinous trees.

It's funny how unbiblical creationists get when they are trying to defend their improbable mythology. The Bible says that it was gopher wood, and no one has any idea what that was. But it really doesn't matter what kind of wood was used. A wooden ship over 300 ft. long leaks badly.

The Phoenicians and Alexander the Great used the same type of wood in their ships because it is especially resistant to water and decay. Moses also was told to “cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.”

But the Phoenicians and Alexander didn't build ships over 500 ft. long. The really large ships from antiquity were modular, where smaller watertight sections were fastened together. The Chinese also built some large ships using this method. But not Noah. And I wasn't aware that Moses was ever engaged in any ship building. Can you imagine the lethal atmosphere inside a big box without ventilation that was covered all over the inside with tar? The question of seaworthiness would actually have been moot, since just the fumes from the tar would have killed everything.

So it would have been completely waterproof, no 'pumping' would have been required.

Tar isn't good enough. A ship made of wood over 300 ft. in length leaks. There is no two ways about it. The structural limits of all kinds of wood are exceeded at about 300 ft.

Actually, you'd be more familiar with pitching then me, the ark would have needed to be strong enough to resist the tendency to sag under the stress of being lifted by the waves.

And that is the point. It couldn't have been. It was made of wood. The Wyoming had steel cross-bracing and that wasn't enough. It leaked, just as the ark would have leaked.

The accounts show that the length-to-depth ratio was 10 to 1. Isnt this similar to the ratio modern ship builders use to accommodate such stresses?

Irrelevant. You can't "accommodate" the fact that wood will bend and twist. When it does, the hull leaks. Modern shipbuilders use steel.

Edited by pandion, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 6:32 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 11:54 PM pandion has responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 24 of 453 (520328)
08-20-2009 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
08-20-2009 6:38 PM


Re: Waves that reach around the world
RAZD writes:

Note that the size of waves are proportional to the reach of the winds as well as their strength. The "roaring 40's" are called that for a reason -- the reach there circles the globe. With a global flood this would be a universal condition. Wind and waves unimpeded as they circle the globe.

The waves that broke up the boats in your OP were peanuts by comparison.


Thanks for that info. I'll keep that in mind the next time a creationist tries to tell me how gentle things were during the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2009 6:38 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 25 of 453 (520333)
08-20-2009 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rahvin
08-20-2009 1:16 PM


Re: Re-storm
Rahvin writes:

If so, ICANT's view of the FLUD is irrelevant - unless the waters were still as glass for the entire voyage (in which case, how did the Ark move and wind up on a mountain, since that would preclude any current or even any wind), the Ark would have sunk.


(1) The viscosity of water could have been different at the time. It could have been high enough that it acted very closely to solid matter.

(2) The pressure from the fountains of the deep could have been great enough that it raised certain sections of the land creating mountains and hills. In other words, the mountains of ararat could have been formed from right underneath the ark.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 08-20-2009 1:16 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 26 of 453 (520334)
08-20-2009 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rahvin
08-20-2009 7:17 PM


Ship Design 101
Hi Rahvin, (and pandion) sorry to disagree.

The measurments are 300 long, 50 wide, and 30 high. Rule up those measurements and you've got a rectangular box with a lenght to depth ratio of 10 to 1 and a length to width ratio of 6 to 1.

The ratio is irrelevant. The issue is the strength of the building materials. For similar reasons that you cannot make a skyscraper out of wood, you cannot make a seaworthy ship of that length out of wood.

Actually the ratios are relevant. For one they do show the relative "boxiness" of the vessel/s compared to modern designed ocean going vessels. For two they affect the "hull girder" strength, with the vessel considered as a box beam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)

quote:
General characteristics
Tonnage: 3,730.54 gross register tons (GRT), 3036.21 NRT
Displacement: 10,000 short tons (9,100 metric tons) approx.
Length: 450 ft (140 m) overall
350 ft (110 m) on deck
329.5 ft (100.4 m) between perpendiculars
Beam: 50.1 ft (15.3 m)
Draught: 30.4 ft (9.3 m)
Depth of hold: 33 ft (10 m)
Propulsion: Sail
Sail plan: six-masted schooner
Speed: 16 knots (30 km/h/18 mph)
Complement: 13-14


Note: copyright picture here:
http://www.mainememory.net/bin/Detail?ln=8863
From the Maine Maritime Museum (been there)

There was no superstructure on this vessel and the height of the cargo hold would be from the top of the keel to the underside of the deck beams. To be generous we can assume that the height from keel to deck was ~40 ft max.

This results in LOA/maxB of 450/50 = 9:1 and LOA/maxD of 450/40 = 11.25. An L/B over 8:1 is considered lean, and is usually used to decrease drag (Catamaran and kayak hulls are ~12:1), although this can result in strength problems in large vessels (like the Wyoming)

For comparison the Mayflower was fat:

quote:
Details of the ship's dimensions are unknown; but estimates based on its load weight and the typical size of 180-ton merchant ships of its day suggest an estimated length of 90–110 feet (27.4–33.5 m) and a width of about 25 feet (7.6 m).[6]

That's a L/B of ~100/24 or 4:1, and a LOT of european sailing vessels were similarly boxy. There is a reason for this, and the reason is the strength of the hull.

A vessel like this is a box beam, and the strength of a beam is a function of the stressed axis cubed times the non-stressed axis. I-beams and cored laminate constructions take advantage of this to provide high strength to weight rations.

Wide makes the boat stiffer against side to side bending -- and you will note that Wyoming was known for snaking while underway, bending side to side, and this is due to the high L/B ratio.

Changing the L/B ratio from 9 to 6 and the L/D from 11.25 to 10 would mean (roughly) an increase of (11.25•9^3)/(10•6^3) or 3.80 times as strong in the transverse direction: stiffer against snaking -- for the same length vessel.

Tall makes the boat stiffer against up and down bending -- and you will note that Wyoming was also known for hogging and sagging while underway, and this is due to a high L/D ratio.

Changing the L/D from 11.25 to 10 and the L/B ratio from 9 to 6would mean (roughly) an increase of (9•11.25^3)/(6•10^3) or 2.14 times as strong in the vertical direction: stiffer against hogging\sagging -- for the same length vessel.

The next issue is how much you need to scale the strength up for size: the strength of a beam necessary to carry the same stress (ie the strength of the material) in the extreme fibers is a function of length cubed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark

quote:
From the same period the early Church Father Origen (c. 182–251), responding to a critic who doubted that the Ark could contain all the animals in the world, countered with a learned argument about cubits, holding that Moses, the traditional author of the book of Genesis, had been brought up in Egypt and would therefore have used the larger Egyptian cubit. He also fixed the shape of the Ark as a truncated pyramid, square at its base, and tapering to a square peak one cubit on a side; it was not until the 12th century that it came to be thought of as a rectangular box with a sloping roof.[15]

Abdallah ibn 'Umar al-Baidawi, writing in the 13th century, gives the length of the Ark as 300 cubits (157 m, 515 ft) by 50 (26.2 m, 86 ft) in width, 30 (15.7 m, 52 ft) in height, ...


Doesn't seem to be much agreement on the size or shape, but we can go with Peg's numbers:

The bending stress of a beam is related to (1/L)^3, so if you double the length of a beam you need 8 times the strength to have the same bending stress (measured in the extreme fibers, the places where failure starts), which is set by the material limits (usually with a factor of safety to reduce design stress levels below the failure level).

So we compare (Lark/Lwyoming)^3 = (515/450)^3 = 1.499 ... so it needs 1.5 x the Wyoming for the same stress, and it has 2.14 in the vertical direction, so OVERALL the would actually be stiffer by ~42%.

This, of course, is just theoretical - the Wyoming had steel cross beams and other structures to increase the strength of the hull girder, while the ark was constructed entirely of wood -- but the boxier shape does make the vessel stiffer.

Wood is flexible.

Curiously wood has a high strength and stiffness to weight ration compared to many metals and composites except only the most exotic composites. The problem is more in the fastening than in the strength of the material per se: without a glue as strong as the material you have the old problem of the weakest link in a chain.

In Traditional wooden ship building this weakest link is the bonding of the wood members, one to the next, not just in the sealing of the outer skin, but in fastening the internal structural members so that they don't "work" and result in give (eg - a peg in a loose hole) before taking up load. So it's the fasteners between the wood members that makes wooden boats flex, not the relative stiffness of wood itself.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 08-20-2009 7:17 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by pandion, posted 08-21-2009 12:13 AM RAZD has responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 27 of 453 (520335)
08-20-2009 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by lyx2no
08-20-2009 4:36 PM


Cold Water
lyx2no writes:

According to mfaber that cold water would have been 1800°K.


When I read your post I knew where it was going. I answered a couple of others and then watched some TV and read for awhile. But my mind kept coming back to the heating of the atmosphere from all the rain.

I argued in this thread that the cold water of the seas would make the tar brittle because I thought that maybe creationists could understand that. I know for certain that they don't understand the arguments about the heat. I've argued with them before about this and they just don't seem able to grasp it.

It seems obvious to a creationist that rain cools the atmosphere because on a hot day it gets cooler when it rains. True at ground level. Creationists don't grasp that when water vapor condenses to water it releases heat, latent hear, as it says in the article you cited. I've never been inclined to try to work out how much heat - I'm not sure that I can, but I have been told by a physicist or two that my point was correct. The release of the heat from the condensation of that much water would have steamed Noah and family, along all of the animals.

I had never thought about the kinetic energy of falling raindrops being converted to heat before. That makes the problem worse for Noah, doesn't it? At those temperatures the pitch would have been runny enough to be useless as caulk.

Thanks for the link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 08-20-2009 4:36 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3220 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 28 of 453 (520337)
08-20-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by pandion
08-20-2009 8:11 PM


pandion writes:

Can you imagine the lethal atmosphere inside a big box without ventilation that was covered all over the inside with tar?

it was ventilated according to the account

Noah was told to make an opening at the top of the width of a cubit all around Ge 6:16. this wasnt just a small peephole, if the opening was a cubit in height near the roof and extending right around the four sides, thats nearly 140 sq/m air vent.

I understand that the structural limits are exceeded at 300 ft in length, but again you are assuming that Noah made each piece of wood at this length or longer. We are not told how Noah fastened the timbers together or what length each of them were so its not a valid argument to claim that the length of the wood would have been a failure for the ark.

also the ark was constructed with three decks, which would have added to its strength

and thanks to RADZ for that ratio info!

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by pandion, posted 08-20-2009 8:11 PM pandion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by pandion, posted 08-21-2009 12:57 AM Peg has responded
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2009 9:14 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 29 of 453 (520338)
08-20-2009 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by lyx2no
08-20-2009 4:36 PM


Re: Storm?
I agree with pandion. I, too, have tried to explain the heating of the atmosphere due to condensation and water dropping down to creationists. I gave up years ago because I finally realized there was just no way creationists would understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 08-20-2009 4:36 PM lyx2no has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1291 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 30 of 453 (520339)
08-21-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
08-20-2009 10:58 PM


Re: Ship Design 101
Wow! Awesome post.

RAZD writes:

So we compare (Lark/Lwyoming)^3 = (515/450)^3 = 1.499 ... so it needs 1.5 x the Wyoming for the same stress, and it has 2.14 in the vertical direction, so OVERALL the would actually be stiffer by ~42%.


Except that where it counts, the Wyoming was not 450 ft. If you discount the bowsprit and all of the sailing rigging, she was 334 ft. on deck and 329 ft. at the water line. How does that affect the "stiffness" of the ark? Also, does your calculation include both snaking and hogging/sagging?

Curiously wood has a high strength and stiffness to weight ration compared to many metals and composites except only the most exotic composites. The problem is more in the fastening than in the strength of the material per se: without a glue as strong as the material you have the old problem of the weakest link in a chain.

In Traditional wooden ship building this weakest link is the bonding of the wood members, one to the next, not just in the sealing of the outer skin, but in fastening the internal structural members so that they don't "work" and result in give (eg - a peg in a loose hole) before taking up load. So it's the fasteners between the wood members that makes wooden boats flex, not the relative stiffness of wood itself.


I have no reason to disagree with anything that you said. I did a bit of reading about wood ship construction. Of course, Noah was bronze age, so he might have fastened the "hull" planks with bronze, or even copper nails. Both of those have the advantage of not being as susceptible to corrosion from sea water, although they are not as strong. But, metal fasteners have the disadvantage of being so much harder than wood that they cause what is known as "nail sickness", i.e., increased wood decay around the metal nails. I don't know if the year at sea of the ark would have been significant.

I think it more likely that the ark would have been constructed using treenails. This method consists of driving wooden dowels through holes bored into the plank and the structural beam. This method has the advantage that the wood of both the planks and the treenails would swell in water, thus forming a stronger bond. Additionally, a very old technique is to drive a spike of a harder wood into the outer end of the dowel, thus forming an even tighter bond.

Of course, we have no idea of the supposed shipbuilding skills of Noah or any methods he may have used. But all in all, the ark would have leaked badly. No way around it. Maybe it didn't leak as badly as the Wyoming and her sisters, maybe worse. That boat still didn't float.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2009 10:58 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2009 9:32 AM pandion 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 © 2019