Summations Only

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.

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

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.

The OP (and me) are concerned with ark technicalities, not broadening the thread out to cover The Flud. Kon Tiki was a balsa wood construction which lasted a third of a year on the open sea before smashing up on a reef. I don't see much issue with balsa wood floating for a year - especially if coated in a layer of pitch to prevent waterlogging I guess broad brushstroke skepticism makes all things impossible - even the perfectly feasible. That's not the real question. The real question is contained in the OP I trained and worked as a mechanical engineer for many years before I became a Christian and have yet to find a reason to conform the Bible to the findings of Science. The Bibles inner consistancy works better (I find) when such 'stories' are taken as literal and to suppose them allegorical would be to throw a spanner into what is a fine mechanism. I can't say it causes me a moments trouble in my working day.The path to Hell is rendered by God to be as intellectually satisfying to the unbeliever as the path to Heaven is to one whose eyes have been opened. It is fitting that the same world which causes one to fall to his knees before his Creator through awestruck humility at what has been created, should be the stumbling block by which so many will be damne, supposing themselves to have conquered it. Feeds the hungry? Heals the sick? Are you out of your mind!! It's the poor and hungry who make the cloths to supply the few in possession of "the model" with this years fashions.This world is nose-diving downwards towards oblivion in a last gasp fit of self-consumption. Half-hearted attempts to apply the brakes fail to recognise that we went over the parapet many years ago. To think otherwise is to express a level of faith in man that far exceeds anything required to float a boat. Good deeds? The obvious central message was that God is intent on wiping sin and sinners from the face of the earth. Telling folk that is something I consider a worthwhile thing to do - given that I was once one of the ones to be wiped out.Thanks for reminding me to do it. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It's not quite as bad as that (some quarters insist on a move to eg: Lebanese cedar on material sourcing grounds but let's perservere with the inclusion of balsa for the fun of it)Physical properties for:

quote:

---

Red Oak

​

Young's modulus 12800 - 13000 MPa
Tensile strength 0 - 163 MPa
Compressive strength 47 - 61.2 MPa
Bending strength 100 - 130 MPa

​

Balsa

​

Young's modulus 1130 - 6000 MPa
Shear modulus 100 - 500 MPa
Tensile strength 0 - 75 MPa
Compressive strength 3.5 - 27 MPa

---

http://www.matbase.com/...class4-5-10-years/balsa/propertiesTaking the higher end Balsa and lower end Oak we see that Balsa has half the compressive strength of Oak. Not bad.Granted, a 100% balsa construction isn't to be recommended - especially where hooves are present. There's no reason not to mix things up abit though - using more suitable wood in areas requiring it. We (and presumably Noah) know that woven structures are tough little critters. And flexible. And strong. And relatively light. We know that less dense than water substances float - the less dense the more they float. We know too that raft-like structures serve as excellent support structures for not a lot of technical complication in their manufacture - even if they can hardly be described as ships.It's not so much a question of ad hoc as what's reasonably feasible given available skills, materials and observational know-how. So far there's not much of note which would prevent construction of an ark.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Your ability to recognise tongue-in-cheek falls short of your ability to remember. The point then (as now) is to suggest that which is feasible given the kinds of materials and tooling around at the time. Not because I think that's how it was necessarily done but to illustrate the poverty of the objection at times - your own off-topic ramblings being a case in point in this thread.There are good grounds for objecting to a planked ark on the grounds of watertightness. What are your engineering objections to a (far simpler) floating platform which doesn't rely on watertightness for buoyancy because.. ..so far, the OP hasn't had much more than this to say on the matter. Which is another way of saying that you belong to the catergory of person who has not yet integrated Jesus and Paul so as to arrive at a single, congruent message?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

As you would have it. Except for this one misrepresentation. It's a statement of my position - not a rebuttal of your view. Whilst God is about wrath and his wrath expresses itself in it's hatred of sin and whilst folk will surely tremble in abject fear if encountering him in their sin, He is not 'all about fear and hate'. His is about love also - sufficient unto death on a cross. And to my recollection I speak of/argue both sides: as much about his forgiveness, his grace, his generosity, his seeking that none be lost ...as I do his furious wrath and hatred of sin.God of the Bible is not your (heavily caricatured) Jesus-of-the-good-deeds.

Non sequitur. I'm not suggesting you should care. I'm suggesting that the anglagards viewpoint that Jesus and Paul delivered irreconcilable messages arises out of his not yet having integrated the two into one congruent message. Fine. Now point out what they are - in topic.

Apart from a post from RAZD, could you link me to where I was pushed and prodded (on-topically) by anyone? I thought it'd be a bit of fun to dance a 'what's-eminently-feasible' dance. But it seems that most would prefer to take refuge behind "if it ain't been done then it's not doable" neglecting the fact that the ark, if true, would represent a unique, never-to-be-repeated exercise.If you have some insight into why raft should be considered fantastical then I'd be interested in your comments.

It wasn't a boat - it was a liferaft. And if boat it what was required then there are far better ways to make them than building a raft. The reason it wasn't done again was that there was no reason to do it again.We're all agreed that a watertight hull filled with air costs less in material and provides more storage volume than a raft. Given that need that is what got built.You got any technical objections to a big raft?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Are you suggesting that it would be difficult to successfully construct a raft of that size? What particular technical problems do you see as insurmountable? This objection barks up the wrong tree given that the feasibility of an ark of given (limited) specification is the topic to hand.

Raft refers to the hull-less nature of it. That there's a structure placed on it doesn't alter the basis of it.

And the way to do that in the locality of a debate forum is to debate the specific issue at hand - not snipe from the sidelines.

Hi RAZD, sorry for the delayed response. Granted. I was referring to the fact that a structure placed on a raft doesn't alter the raft being a raft - it'd just be a raft-based vessel with a structure on it. I'd agree that it would be inadvisable to place the elephant pen at the top of the flagpole.What do you think; the (heavier/bigger) animals could be placed on the lowest deck near the water line with perhaps (lighter) food placed on the deck above - allowing labour saving gravity-aided feeding time. Remembering that at least half of the vessel is submerged and that a (suggested) 70% of this submerged volume is wood, there is no particular issue with a superstructure above the waterline. Let's assume that 5% of the volume of that superstructure is wood - we are left with a significant load capacity above the waterline - whilst maintaining CoG at or below the waterline. Especially if we keep the weighier items close to the waterline. One way to build a suitable superstructure would be to do so in discrete, pod-like units - placed end-to-end/side-by-side with space between them to accomodate raft flexing. Flooring between units to be fixed to one unit but free floating over the next - bridging the gap required for flexing. If required to provide for a closed external wall the the same idea could be employed here(ie: the walls would look something like the scales on a fish from the outside).Thoughts? Edited by iano, : No reason given.