Message 106 of 453 (520696) 08-23-2009 7:26 AM

• Please evaluate evidence and/or arguments on the merits rather than on the source.

• Please keep discussion civil and constructive.

Message 107 of 453 (520707) 08-23-2009 11:30 AM

Reply to: Message 101 by DevilsAdvocate 08-22-2009 8:30 PM

Balsa below the waterline provides optimal buoyancy. Other wood can be used in construction to provide good wear/localised strength characteristics - think of GRP coated polystrene surfboards. Not that balsa wood should be considered weak, think: De Havilland Mosquito.

However, given that some folk object to the use of balsa on locational availability* grounds we could always switch to cedar, Lebanese cedar solving the locality problem perhaps. It's not as light as balsa so we'd have to reduce our above-waterline load carrying capacity to something like 1,500 metric tonnes (or 1,490 metric tonnes if we subtract the aforementioned pair of African elephants).

Backpeddling? What backpeddling?

*it could be that the YEC argument permits an alternative model for continental location at the time but seeing as I'm not aware of what that model is we'll suppose balsa wood out.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Message 108 of 453 (520708) 08-23-2009 11:35 AM

Reply to: Message 99 by DrJones* 08-22-2009 8:17 PM

It's not 'any' force. It's mucho reduced force - compared to what a traditional closed hull structure would undergo. If it's a good enough idea for fishermans nets then it's good enough for Noahs ark.

Message 110 of 453 (520732) 08-23-2009 3:47 PM

Reply to: Message 109 by DrJones* 08-23-2009 1:55 PM

There's no math in the OP. Nor here. The OP approaches things from a credulity point of view and is correct (in my view) in supposing it impossible to create a watertight hull (placed on even a calm sea) by traditional shipbuilding means. He uses the example of a similar sized wooden hull to illustrate his point and works from there. Remember:

I'm suggesting more floating platform/less ship. It doesn't stretch credulity to suppose that an intrinsically buoyant structure would be capable of floating on water whilst carrying a load. There is no need for pumps, no need for caulking, no need to dispose of waste and no need to feed (assuming feed was put in place beforehand and the animals fed themselves).

We've no way of knowing what the sea conditions were in the locality of the ark and we shouldn't necessarily suppose 'stormy'. To that end, we can suppose the possibility of a calm-ish sea which isn't (credulity suggests) going to tax a structure through which a swell can freely move. If it floats your boat, imagine a series of smaller rafts daisy chained together rather than a single monolithic structure. Something that could be expected to roll with the waves. Then come back with your objections.

Be careful that your objections rise above rhetoric lest you fall on your own sword in this regard.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Message 111 of 453 (520733) 08-23-2009 4:00 PM

Reply to: Message 110 by iano 08-23-2009 3:47 PM

We know more then 7 inches of rain fell on the ark every minute for 40 days and 40 nights. That's as much rain as a hurricane drops in two hours. Why shouldn't we necessarily suppose stormy?

Message 112 of 453 (520736) 08-23-2009 4:04 PM

Reply to: Message 110 by iano 08-23-2009 3:47 PM

in regards to your proposed ark and as such your ideas can be grouped with the other bullshit theories on ark construction.

Message 113 of 453 (520738) 08-23-2009 4:12 PM

Reply to: Message 110 by iano 08-23-2009 3:47 PM

You're right. It was probably a gentle mist that flooded the earth. The opening of the heavens is just a gentle mist.

Are we also to suppose he floated the animals around the world in his effort to distribute them?

Message 114 of 453 (520739) 08-23-2009 4:16 PM

Reply to: Message 108 by iano 08-23-2009 11:35 AM

So, now fishing nets float on the surface?

Message 115 of 453 (520742) 08-23-2009 4:37 PM

Reply to: Message 111 by lyx2no 08-23-2009 4:00 PM

Is that average or local conditions? I'd imagine that amount of water falling uniformly to have a dampening effect on the ocean - if anything.

Message 116 of 453 (520745) 08-23-2009 4:48 PM

Reply to: Message 112 by DrJones* 08-23-2009 4:04 PM

I take it that the notion of non-rigid structure (in the off-the-top-of-the-head-form of a number of smaller, independent - and patently feasible - structures coupled together) has gone down like a planked ark.

Edited by iano, : add smiley

Message 117 of 453 (520747) 08-23-2009 5:12 PM

Reply to: Message 114 by hooah212002 08-23-2009 4:16 PM

Er..no. But they do help to illustrate the principle that the more gaps you put into a structure through which a fluid can pass, the (mucho)less force is applied by the fluid to that structure.

Message 118 of 453 (520755) 08-23-2009 6:49 PM

Reply to: Message 115 by iano 08-23-2009 4:37 PM

That's average. You'd better hope its everywhere, because if the water then has to flow from the areas of high rain fall to low rain fall the torrents will be rushing along at hundreds of miles per hour. What do you imagine will happen when two such currents meet? How do you imagine your ark-cum-flotsam would respond? Would "wee" be the exclamation that first comes to mind?

How does one keep that much water out of their wicker-works boat? How does one Keep the straw, grain and meal dry? How does one avoid trench foot?

The Bay of Fundy fills 56 feet in six hours or so. That's 1.9 inches a minute. One does not want to be in the way.

Message 119 of 453 (520757) 08-23-2009 7:18 PM

Reply to: Message 96 by iano 08-22-2009 7:39 PM

I've been better, and I've been worse. Thanks.

Displacement is displacement. Whatever floats your boat, the gross weight of your boat and contents equals the weight of water displaced or the boat sinks.

Balsa wood has excellent tensile strength along the fibers, but splits along fibers easily, and it has very little compressive strength, and would crush under load, whether load is from other parts of vessel (fasteners, beams, etc) or cargo.

Ah well, if you are going to move off into ad hoc ideas rather than keep it to what we know (which, granted, is small), then have fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Brendan

Except the hull was not covered with hides ...

Enjoy

Message 120 of 453 (520758) 08-23-2009 7:51 PM

Reply to: Message 99 by DrJones* 08-22-2009 8:17 PM

It is common with large rafts to see waves pass down their length, as the average position of the floating members is at the average height of the waves over it's length.

The main point is that we have no idea how the ark was actually constructed, and you could easily have a large square raft with enough thickness to support the loads, then enclosed decks over that to contain the animals and humans. This would solve the waste issue, but means that the cargo volume is severely reduced to fit inside the envelope ... which is all we have information on ....

Enjoy.