Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 9:32 AM
34 online now:
AlexCaledin, AZPaul3, JonF, Larni, Percy (Admin), Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,811 Year: 8,847/19,786 Month: 1,269/2,119 Week: 29/576 Day: 29/50 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   That boat don't float
pandion
Member (Idle past 1163 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 31 of 453 (520342)
08-21-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
08-20-2009 11:54 PM


Peg writes:

it was ventilated according to the account


There is a difference between venting and ventilation. The ark was vented by a window, not ventilated. To ventilate the ark you would have to have an intake of fresh air and an outlet for noxious fumes and a fan (or some other means) to drive the air. Down 3 decks, a 20 inch window would have no effect. Add to that the buildup of methane from the belching and flatulence of the animals. Both the fumes from the tar and the methane are heavier than air and thus would have needed a positive ventilation system to prevent the lower decks from becoming lethal. Thus, the 8 people would have been required to man the air pumps as well as the water pumps many hours a day, in addition to feeding the animals and mucking out all of the feces and urine and carrying it up a deck or two to dump it out that little window.

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.

But that's not what Genesis says. It says, "A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above." So there was a window on the top deck. So what? Please stop with the extra-Biblical inventions.

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.

No we aren't. We are assuming that the ark exceeded 300 ft., to over 500 ft. in fact. It actually has nothing to do with the length of each plank but the structural strength of wood. Never, ever are adjacent, or even near, hull planks terminated on the same structural rib. Thus, the length of individual planks is negated. Nice try, but wishing doesn't make it so.

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.

Really? Neither were we told anything about resinous wood, or a vent all around the ark. You just make it up as you go, don't you? Of course, no one but you mentioned the length of the timbers. It is the length of the ship that matters. Please pay attention.

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

Not significantly. The length of the ark exceeded the structural strength of wood by more than 1.5 times.

I sometimes wish that I could be a creationist so that I could make thing up as I went along. "The Bible is the literal truth unless we feel the need to invent arguments."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 11:54 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 08-21-2009 3:00 AM pandion has responded
 Message 33 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 8:36 AM pandion has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3092 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 32 of 453 (520345)
08-21-2009 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by pandion
08-21-2009 12:57 AM


pandion writes:

But that's not what Genesis says. It says, "A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above." So there was a window on the top deck. So what? Please stop with the extra-Biblical inventions.

how its that an extra-biblical invention ???

you made the claim that there was no ventilation, i showed you otherwise. And genesis does not say 'window' it says 'tsohar' This is a hebrew word that means “opening for illumination.”

Gen 6:16 " You will make a tso′har [roof; or, window] for the ark, and you will complete it to the extent of a cubit upward, and the entrance of the ark you will put in its side; you will make it with a lower [story], a second [story] and a third [story].

This 'window' was an openening for light and air to come in.

pandion writes:

To ventilate the ark you would have to have an intake of fresh air and an outlet for noxious fumes and a fan (or some other means) to drive the air.

houses are built with air vents that are not propelled by a fan. If they are of no value, why continue to build houses with air vents?

pandion writes:

We are assuming that the ark exceeded 300 ft., to over 500 ft. in fact. It actually has nothing to do with the length of each plank but the structural strength of wood.

but i though you said that the structural limit stops at 300 ft. If thats the case, then several shorter lengths would not reach their structural limit. There is nothing to say that Noah used peices of over 300 ft. They could have been shorter pieces that were somehow connected together.

pandion writes:

It actually has nothing to do with the length of each plank but the structural strength of wood.

the structual strength is determined by the ratio as RAZD has shown in his above post.

pandion writes:

Really? Neither were we told anything about resinous wood, or a vent all around the ark. You just make it up as you go, don't you?

have you read the account or are you going off anti creation propaganda?

quote:
Genesis 6:13 "Make for yourself an ark out of wood of a resinous tree. You will make compartments in the ark, and you must cover it inside and outside with tar. 15 And this is how you will make it: three hundred cubits the length of the ark, fifty cubits its width, and thirty cubits its height. 16 You will make a tso′har [roof; or, window] for the ark, and you will complete it to the extent of a cubit upward, and the entrance of the ark you will put in its side; you will make it with a lower [story], a second [story] and a third [story].

pandion writes:

The length of the ark exceeded the structural strength of wood by more than 1.5 times.

the length is one thing, but the width is what increases its ratio and in the case of the ark, it was 1-10. You need to calculate the width into it.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix "quote" type quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by pandion, posted 08-21-2009 12:57 AM pandion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Theodoric, posted 08-21-2009 9:12 AM Peg has responded
 Message 42 by pandion, posted 08-21-2009 10:58 AM Peg has responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 33 of 453 (520377)
08-21-2009 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by pandion
08-21-2009 12:57 AM


Let's be resinable
If I could er... row in here for a minute.

What would happen if the ark, instead of being made along traditional lines, was of woven construction (inspired perhaps by the smaller scale Moses-basket ). Let's suppose the wood used was lightweight and strong too (balsa wood for instance). In this case you tend towards circumventing the OP's structural strength/leaking problems

Structual strength: because the ark is uber flexible. Leaking: because the structure is open and relies on the buoyant nature of the wood itself and not the airspace contained within the hull for floatation.

The open nature of the structure would tend towards solving your waste disposal/ventilation issues too. Passively rather than actively - indicating God's design to err towards the labour saving/eco-friendly.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by pandion, posted 08-21-2009 12:57 AM pandion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 9:15 AM iano has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6263
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 34 of 453 (520381)
08-21-2009 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Peg
08-21-2009 3:00 AM


Not 300 ft boards! Doh!!
but i though you said that the structural limit stops at 300 ft. If thats the case, then several shorter lengths would not reach their structural limit. There is nothing to say that Noah used peices of over 300 ft. They could have been shorter pieces that were somehow connected together.

Nobody is saying that each piece of wood is 300 ft long. That is ludicrous to even consider. Could you at least attempt to read the posts, so you actually know what people are saying.

It is the joining together of the(as you say) "shorter pieces" that is the problem. The structural limit is not of an individual piece of wood, it is of a structure that long made of lots of pieces of wood.

Why don't you just admit what you think? It was magic. Godidit. Skip the science forums and stick to the faith forums. Because all your arguments go back to godidit.

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 08-21-2009 3:00 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 08-22-2009 4:28 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 35 of 453 (520382)
08-21-2009 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
08-20-2009 11:54 PM


Hi Peg,

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

Curiously horizontal decks don't contribute to vertical stiffness. We don't really know the internal structure of either vessel, so a real comparison cannot be made.

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.

A single vent is not ventilation. Heavy gas sinks (CO2, methane, etc) are heavier that oxygen and fill a space from the bottom up. The air needs to be moved to be ventilation, usually with a dedicated in and out flow path.

Message 20

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.

Curiously the buoyancy of the wood is irrelevant to the buoyancy of the vessel, which is why we can build boats of steel and concrete.

Resins can make wood denser and more brittle. There is a wood called "ironwood" because it sinks. It is full of resins.

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.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, or wooden vessels would still be using this simple system. When a seam works the tar seal is broken if the tar is stiff, and if the tar is flexible then the water pressure at the bottom forces it out of the seam.

and thanks to RADZ for that ratio info!

You're welcome.

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 28 by Peg, posted 08-20-2009 11:54 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 36 of 453 (520383)
08-21-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by iano
08-21-2009 8:36 AM


Re: Let's be resinable
So....the Ark just porously floated atop the water? All 3-500ft of it? With thousands of animals inside?

Or was half underwater, but still lightweight enough to float so the other half was not underwater?

If Noah, some 4000 years ago, was able to build a ship of this magnitude, why did he NOT pass along the knowledge? Why can we not continue to build wooden ships like the Ark? Why are we stuck at the ~300ft mark when he easily surpassed that.......withOUT technology at his side?

I'll tell you why: god helped him. Gave him the strength of 600 men. (probably gave him 600 men too in the likes of slaves, which were immediately thrown overboard so as to maintain the "chosen" people's race). So there is NO good literal explanation for this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 8:36 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 9:49 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19865
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 37 of 453 (520384)
08-21-2009 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by pandion
08-21-2009 12:13 AM


Re: Ship Design 101
Thanks pandion,

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?

This is how it works out on the spreadsheet (this is done a little more rigourously than the previous calculation, and is more accurate as a ballpark estimate for comparisons. Note that done properly each would be modeled as a shell rather than a block, however we have no information on the skin thickness of either vessel.

LBD
Ark5158652
L/1610
BD^3(vertical)-12092288
DB^3(horizontal)33074912-
Wyoming3505040
L/178.75
BD^3(vertical)-3200000
DB^3(horizontal)5000000-
Ark/Wyoming
BD^3(vertical)-3.78
DB^3(horizontal)6.61-
(L/L)^33.19208%119%

The ark is still 20% stiffer in the worst (vertical loading) condition.

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.

Agreed, the problem is making sure you have enough area in the dowels to transfer the loads.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : transposed numbers


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 30 by pandion, posted 08-21-2009 12:13 AM pandion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 08-22-2009 4:50 AM RAZD has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 38 of 453 (520385)
08-21-2009 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by hooah212002
08-21-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Let's be resinable
quote:
So....the Ark just porously floated atop the water? All 3-500ft of it?

Assuming it's made from a material less dense than water (ie: most woods) then of course it doesn't matter how big it is - it'll float

quote:
With thousands of animals inside?

Why not? Empty, a woven balsa vessel would barely 'dent' the surface of the water. As you load up it'd sink lower and lower into the water. A point would come when it sinks low enough to submerge the lowest stored animals (because the water level rises inside the ark). At which point you've reach max capacity.

You could improve things by weaving a more open structure above the waterline (to reduce weight) and increase density of weave below the waterline to increase buoyancy (and so increase animal storage capacity).

quote:
Or was half underwater, but still lightweight enough to float so the other half was not underwater?

As per your typical ship. The point is to address the structural considerations of the OP

quote:
If Noah, some 4000 years ago, was able to build a ship of this magnitude, why did he NOT pass along the knowledge? Why can we not continue to build wooden ships like the Ark? Why are we stuck at the ~300ft mark when he easily surpassed that.......withOUT technology at his side?

It would have been God-designed and Noah-built. Perhaps God likes us to discover things for ourselves. It's more fun for us that way.

quote:
I'll tell you why: god helped him. Gave him the strength of 600 men. (probably gave him 600 men too in the likes of slaves, which were immediately thrown overboard so as to maintain the "chosen" people

Maybe he had lots of time instead of lots of man power. A woven structure strikes me as something you can just plug away on without any great need for large engineering works.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 9:15 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 10:33 AM iano has responded
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2009 10:44 AM iano has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5388
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 39 of 453 (520386)
08-21-2009 10:03 AM


Nitpicky correction:

methane is lighter than air, at 55% of air's density.

Though it would still get pretty noxious on that bottom deck.


    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 40 of 453 (520390)
08-21-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by iano
08-21-2009 9:49 AM


Re: Let's be resinable
quote:

With thousands of animals inside?

Why not? Empty, a woven balsa vessel would barely 'dent' the surface of the water. As you load up it'd sink lower and lower into the water. A point would come when it sinks low enough to submerge the lowest stored animals (because the water level rises inside the ark). At which point you've reach max capacity.

You could improve things by weaving a more open structure above the waterline (to reduce weight) and increase density of weave below the waterline to increase buoyancy (and so increase animal storage capacity).

Really? SO how many animals in total are you supposing were aboard this Ark? Given that a good portion of the ship would be submerged due to your hypothesis, very little room would be left for the rest of the animals. Unless of course, you suppose very few animals were aboard to begin with. In which case, how are there so many now?

It would have been God-designed and Noah-built. Perhaps God likes us to discover things for ourselves. It's more fun for us that way.

This is a science forum. Stick to verifiable facts please.

Edited by hooah212002, : tryin to fix double quote

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : still getting quotes proper

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Removed the "crackbrain" in front of the "hypothesis". Don't do things like that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 9:49 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 10:58 AM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 45 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 11:26 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 41 of 453 (520392)
08-21-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by hooah212002
08-21-2009 10:33 AM


Re: Let's be resinable
Really? SO how many animals in total are you supposing were aboard this Ark? Given that a good portion of the ship would be submerged due to your crackbrain hypothesis, very little room would be left for the rest of the animals. Unless of course, you suppose very few animals were aboard to begin with. In which case, how are there so many now?

The OP's objection has to do with a vessel this size taking to water and that's what I'm addressing.

It is sufficient, I think, to note that a vessel this size, whose unladen form barely dents the surface of the water, could hold a significant number of (unspecified) animals. Indeed, were the designed-to-be-submerged volume fitted out with balsa wood then buoyancy would be further increased - increasing load carrying capacity still further

This is a science forum. Stick to verifiable facts please.

Like this you mean?

yourself earlier writes:

I'll tell you why: god helped him. Gave him the strength of 600 men. (probably gave him 600 men too in the likes of slaves, which were immediately thrown overboard so as to maintain the "chosen" people


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 10:33 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 11:21 AM iano has responded
 Message 63 by lyx2no, posted 08-21-2009 3:22 PM iano has not yet responded

  
pandion
Member (Idle past 1163 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 42 of 453 (520393)
08-21-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Peg
08-21-2009 3:00 AM


Peg writes:

how its that an extra-biblical invention ???


Your description exceeds what the Bible says. Therefore, your description is extra-Biblical. You, as a creationist, get to make it up as you go and then claim the Bible as the authority for your fantasies.

you made the claim that there was no ventilation, i showed you otherwise. And genesis does not say 'window' it says 'tsohar' This is a hebrew word that means “opening for illumination.”

Do you actually know the difference between light and ventilation? It seems not. Further, you tell me that it isn't a window but an opening for illumination, followed by a translation that calls it a window. Either it is or it isn't a window. Exactly what do you think a window is? And somewhere in you confusion about the window/opening for illumination you come up with ventilation. Make it up as you go and claim the Bible says that.

This 'window' was an openening for light and air to come in.

Great! On the top floor someone might stick their head out this window and get some fresh air - but not down two decks. The problem has been explained to you several times but you seem to be having trouble understanding the most simple principles. The hydrocarbon fumes (from tar - ever smelled it) and the CO2, are heavier than air. There would also be constant accumulation of methane from the animal waste. Those gases would have accumulated in the bottom of the ark unless there were an active ventilation system. It is the reason that hard rock mines have huge fans on ventilation shafts - to pump good air down to the miners and drive out the methane.

houses are built with air vents that are not propelled by a fan. If they are of no value, why continue to build houses with air vents?

Perhaps you were unaware of this, but houses are not built to float. The vents in houses are to allow rising hot air to escape from attics. You probably never noticed that there are vents under the eaves as well as vents at the top of the roof. The rising hot air goes out at the top and pulls cooler air in from the eaves. Their purpose is not to introduce breathable air into the house.

but i though you said that the structural limit stops at 300 ft. If thats the case, then several shorter lengths would not reach their structural limit. There is nothing to say that Noah used peices of over 300 ft. They could have been shorter pieces that were somehow connected together.

It amazes me how you just don't grasp some very simple concepts when they are explained to you. No one mentioned individual timbers that were 300 ft. long. Are you actually aware of how long that is? Imagine a football field with a single board laying on it that goes from goal line to goal line. Not gonna happen! Do you think that the wooden ships that we have been talking about were planked with strakes that ran the entire length of the ship? What you are being told (and what you are ignoring) is that 300 ft. is the structural limit of shipbuilding of all wood construction.

the structual strength is determined by the ratio as RAZD has shown in his above post.

Then show us the calculations that show that the ark, at over 500 ft. would not have leaked. Do you actually understand the calculations that RAZD provided?

have you read the account or are you going off anti creation propaganda?

Yes, I have read it, in three different languages, as well as in several different translations in English. The real question is whether or not you have read it. Since you keep making up so much about the story that just isn't there, it would seem not. The "resinous tree" part is from a non-standard translation. No one knows what "gopher" wood was so it is a bit disingenuous to claim that "resinous tree" has some meaning. By the way, your quote begins at Gen 6:14 - not Gen 6:13.

the length is one thing, but the width is what increases its ratio and in the case of the ark, it was 1-10. You need to calculate the width into it.

No I don't. You do. Show us the calculations that make the ark seaworthy. I guess you didn't understand what RADZ said. Increasing the width would decrease the snaking. But you don't say anything about hogging/sagging. Besides, RADZ was talking about box beams and their strength. We are not claiming that the hull broke, only that it leaked badly because of the inability to keep it rigid enough. Tar/pitch isn't a very good caulk for large, wooden ships - it leaks.

But on the other hand, no one ever claimed that mythology had to be possible.

Edited by pandion, : methane


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Peg, posted 08-21-2009 3:00 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 08-22-2009 5:24 AM pandion has not yet responded
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2009 12:35 PM pandion has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 458 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 43 of 453 (520394)
08-21-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
08-20-2009 6:32 PM


Uhm, Peg?
Hello Peg, I won;t comment on the other stuff, since the rest seem to be doing a good job, but this I couldn't let slip:

Peg writes:

Moses also was told to “cover [the ark] inside and outside with tar.”


Now, don't tell me you can't keep your biblical figures apart.


I hunt for the truth
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 87 by Peg, posted 08-22-2009 5:27 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 44 of 453 (520395)
08-21-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by iano
08-21-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Let's be resinable
Really? SO how many animals in total are you supposing were aboard this Ark? Given that a good portion of the ship would be submerged due to your crackbrain hypothesis, very little room would be left for the rest of the animals. Unless of course, you suppose very few animals were aboard to begin with. In which case, how are there so many now?

The OP's objection has to do with a vessel this size taking to water and that's what I'm addressing.

It is sufficient, I think, to note that a vessel this size, whose unladen form barely dents the surface of the water, could hold a significant number of (unspecified) animals. Indeed, were the designed-to-be-submerged volume fitted out with balsa wood then buoyancy would be further increased - increasing load carrying capacity still further

Ok, but to determine where you are coming from, we need to determine how many animals YOU think were aboard the ark. If you think only 5 were aboard, well then, this vessel can be as shoddy as you like. However, if there are a number similar to the number we see today, you have alot more explaining to do. Such as, in the event of a storm (assuming it did NOT storm the entire time, which it had to have), are more animals not drowning due to the storm swells? There goes the whole entire bottom deck. Possibly the second, depending on how far below the surface this woven ship is.

"A significant number" doesn't tell me anything. Significant to whom? Significant in relation to what? The cosmos? An ant hill?

Your "source" says 7 of each or 2 of each, depending where you look. Given how many animals there are today, your hypothesis is extremely flawed. You have yet to come up with an explanation for the number of different animals we see today.

Like this you mean?

yourself earlier writes:

I'll tell you why: god helped him. Gave him the strength of 600 men. (probably gave him 600 men too in the likes of slaves, which were immediately thrown overboard so as to maintain the "chosen" people

It is called sarcasm. I figured it was obvious enough for most to discern that.

I think I may go for a canoe ride in a wicker basket after work today.

edit: Am I straying too far off topic here?

Edited by hooah212002, : Am I straying off topic?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 10:58 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by iano, posted 08-21-2009 11:45 AM hooah212002 has responded

    
iano
Member (Idle past 103 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 45 of 453 (520396)
08-21-2009 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by hooah212002
08-21-2009 10:33 AM


Re: Let's be resinable
hooah writes:

SO how many animals in total are you supposing were aboard this Ark?

Just having a second look at this - and correct me if I've calculated wrongly.

The ark dimensons in metres are approx L=156, B=26, D=15. We're assuming construction from a balsa wood weave - in which the submerged volume of the vessle is filled mainly with wood to increase buoyancy. If we assume that the loaded up vessel is 50% submerged then the load carrying calculation would go like this:

Volume of submerged section = 156 x 26 x 7.5m = 30420m3

Assuming the above sumberged volume is 30% water and 70% wood (because the structure is woven and not solid) we have a submerged volume of wood = 30420 x 70% = 21294m3

The weight of that wood would be a function of the density of balsa wood (170kg/m3) which works out at 3619 metrc tonnes.

The buoyancy generated by this amount of submerged wood is the same as it's weight minus x it's relative weight (ie: the same as it's total buoyancy minus the buoyancy required to stop itself from sinking). Thus

(3619 - (.17 x 3619) = 3004 metric tonnes.

The load carrying capacity of this glorified (literally) raft is 3004 metric tonnes divided up into structure above water, animals, food however Noah saw fit

Seems that there'd be room for a fair few animals to me..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 10:33 AM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by hooah212002, posted 08-21-2009 11:32 AM iano has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019