Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 16 of 296 (52337)
08-26-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mespo
08-26-2003 10:50 AM


Short Digression - Sea Stories
Deleted by Q due to duplicate post.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 08-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mespo, posted 08-26-2003 10:50 AM Mespo has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 296 (52338)
08-26-2003 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mespo
08-26-2003 10:50 AM


Short Digression - Sea Stories
Hee hee. No lie, amigo. I was on the USS Latrine (err, sorry Racine), a flat bottomed LST that's about as close to a barge as you're likely to get in the Navy. We caught just the teeniest edge of a typhoon in the East China Sea (the Latrine was playing trash hauler taking us from Okinawa to Korea for an exercise). The squids claimed she was taking green water on the bridge sponsons (60 feet above the waterline). I DO know she was taking 23 degree rolls, and digging her prow into the waves at least up over the clamshells. And a fun time was had by all. The world's largest roller coaster is tame - tame, I tell ya - by comparison. More like being inside a cement mixer on "high".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mespo, posted 08-26-2003 10:50 AM Mespo has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 296 (52344)
08-26-2003 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by allenroyboy
08-26-2003 4:33 AM


quote:
Comparison between ship designs should be made between similar styles regardless of era -- i.e. apples with apples, oranges with oranges, etc.
Not really. Materials, techniques and knowledge change with time. What is possible at one time may not have been possible 3000 years previously.
quote:
This is very easy for you to check out.
Yet you made the claim. You back it up. You might notice that forum guidelines require this.
quote:
All ships and barges hog and sag -- flexing as they travel through the water and waves.
Indeed. A long box would do the same.
quote:
However, hogging, is a permanent change in the shape of the ship over a long period of time.
Where do you get this stuff?
(In a hogging condition, the deck of the vessel is placed in tension, and the bottom structure in compression.)
Ship Structure Committee: Case Study I: NEW CARISSA
It isn't about long term deformation, but about flexing.
quote:
On the other hand, barges have the same boyant support from stem to stern. So, they won't end up hogging.
So your point is about the distribution of bouyancy? It doesn't make any difference. Riding the waves will make the barge hog. In dead calm waters, a barge will float evenly. A streamlined ship won't. But when traversing wave crests and troughs this becomes irrelevant. A ship the size of the ark will undulate in the waves and crack apart. A barge may in fact be worse, since as the bow dives into the water its inherent bouyancy will drive it back up with greater force that than would the reduced bow of a streamlined ship. Likewise for the stern.
quote:
****Again, a simple search on the internet will find that there are several ocean going barges and companies that construct them. Go ask them a few questions.
I notice they are all steel, and most are under 400 feet. I thought we were talking about timber? You aren't going to compare steel barges with wood are you?
quote:
To be sure, no one knows precisly what was the ecology of a preflood world
Sure we do. It was only 5000 years ago. There is a lot of evidence.
quote:
There is interesting evidence in the gologic record that many plants and animals were larger than they are now.
Not 5000 years ago, other than that Mesapotamia had a wetter climate. You really, really need to back up this stuff.
quote:
While one cannot point to any specific tree fossil being large enough to do the job, the general trend in largeness supports the idea that there could have been trees large enough.
There was no "general trend in largeness." It was 5000 years ago, not much has changed. 5000 years is a heartbeat.
quote:
Lets see some facts and figures that would show that a box-girder designed barge shaped vessel constructed of hundreds of such pieces would "snap like a twig."
The first references I can find to box-girder design refers to construction in the 18oo's. And, in fact, some of the first attempts failed. The engineering experience just wasn't there. So we are to assume that Noah had such knowledge 5000 years previously?
It seems to me that if you put hundreds of ten foot diameter beams in a boat 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall, you would have not much room for anything else. Perhaps your design is flawed?
quote:
Design calculations that I've done indicate that given the proper crossectional area of stress bearing members, a wooden ship the size of the Ark could handle most stresses it may encounder.
Lets see those designs and calculations.
quote:
I just said that the barge design at the ratios of 300x30x45 at that draft would be very stable.
I don't really care what you said. Why is it that none of the barge specs I have seen match the proportions you propose? Most sit at about 46% height to width. Your propotions are 66%.
Were are you getting these numbers anyway? Your ark is smaller than typically proposed. 450' long by 75' wide by 45' tall is more typical.
The dimensions and stability of Noah's ark"
quote:
It would right itself, even if tipped to near 90 degress.
If tipped up on its edge, a box is equally likely to fall onto its top as its bottom. Even so, tipping it to 90 degrees would beat everything inside to a pulp. This doesn't help the cause.
quote:
I figured you were smart enough to see it for yourself.
What I see is that you are assuming waves, or conditions in general, that won't damage the boat. This is what I suspected, but I wanted you to state so explicitly.
The ark's major problem isn't going to be floating at the flood's zenith were you could get long smooth waves-- if such conditions could occur at all in the time-frame. Its problem is going to be takeoff and landing. Water levels aren't going to rise like you are flooding a lock, but will rise more like when a damn breaks. This is the mother of all flash floods. The rising waters will impact the ark with phenomenal force, probably drag it or push it across the landscape and into who know what before the ark starts to float. Once afloat, the waves will be chaotic. The idea that it will ride long waves stem the sterm is silly. It will be twisted and churned by countless smaller waves coming from all directions. Lets not forget that bouyancy is such aerated water is greatly reduced. You've got the same problem when it lands.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 08-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by allenroyboy, posted 08-26-2003 4:33 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by allenroyboy, posted 08-28-2003 3:21 AM John has replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 296 (52578)
08-27-2003 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mespo
08-26-2003 10:50 AM


quote:
So, Noah and his sons were naval architects.
Thats not what I said. According to the Biblical record, God told Noah how to build the Ark. Presumably, God designed it and described to Noah how to build it. On the other hand, Noah may have hired ship designers to design it according to the general description provided by God.
quote:
They knew from experience between goat and sheep herding and farming
It is your assumption that Noah was a herdsman. There is no such indication in the Bible.
quote:
Not only is there a problem of comparing 19th century wooden vessels with those built 5000 years ago, there is a HUGE problem with applying 21st century logic and thinking to people who lived 5000 years ago.
A discussion of the strengh of any ship from any era according to modern knowledge is entirely appropo. But, we cannot assume that they knew what we know. On the other hand we cannot assume that they did NOT know what we know. And if the Ark was designed by God and built by Noah according to a design given him, then the knowledge of shipbuilding in that day may be irrelevent.
quote:
I would venture to guess that you have never been on the open ocean in a storm.
1961, Indian Ocean, aboard the 250' HMS Warrick Castle, on the edge of a typhoon. The ship was smashing through waves as high as the main deck (30-40') with the wavelength about .75 times the length of the ship. Screws were often beating in the air. I was 10, having a great time trying to walk the halls and not smash into the walls and running across stairways as they went flat! Most of the water splashed out of the swiming pool so we couldn't go swiming.
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mespo, posted 08-26-2003 10:50 AM Mespo has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 296 (52597)
08-28-2003 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by John
08-26-2003 12:01 PM


quote:
Where do you get this stuff?
quote:
(In a hogging condition, the deck of the vessel is placed in tension, and the bottom structure in compression.)
Ship Structure Committee: Case Study I: NEW CARISSA
It isn't about long term deformation, but about flexing.
Davis, Andy, 1993, "Understanding the longitudinal deformation of wooden ships: HOG," Wooden Boat, July-August. pp 70-81.
In the above mentioned article the author discusses the problem of permanent hogging deformation. Hogging can refer both to the typical flexing that ships encounter and to a permanent deformed condition. AKA "Hogged"
quote:
So your point is about the distribution of bouyancy? It doesn't make any difference. Riding the waves will make the barge hog.
Yes, all large vessels hog and sag in waves, but we are getting away from the point. That point is that a streamlined ship is inherantly weaker for the same size and same construction material than a barge shaped vessel. One example of that is the fact that streamlined ships experience a permanent stillwater hogging that a barge shape does not.
quote:
A ship the size of the ark will undulate in the waves and crack apart.
Yes, the ark would hog and sag, however, the proper design can keep even a wooden ship from cracking apart.
quote:
A barge may in fact be worse, since as the bow dives into the water its inherent bouyancy will drive it back up with greater force that than would the reduced bow of a streamlined ship.
The advantage of a streamlined design over a boxy barge is in moving through the water. The Ark was not designed to move efficiently through the water, but simply to stay afloat. The strength of the barge shape makes up for any differences in stress encounted with waves hitting the vessel.
quote:
I notice they are all steel, and most are under 400 feet. I thought we were talking about timber? You aren't going to compare steel barges with wood are you?
The comparisons I was making was between vessels of the same size and same construction material. However, one can extrapolate from steel designs to wood designs provided you allow for differences in the strength of materials. For instance, the main stressing bearing members on a steel ship about the size of Noah's Ark are the main deck and bottom planking (sic). Typically these are designed at 2 to 2.5 inches thick of steel to withstand the expected stresses of approximatly 9 tsi (tons per square inch) for that crossection area. A wooden ship of the same size would need to have the main stress bearing members (top and bottom) to be about 21 to 25 inches thick. This would spread the stress out over a larger crossection area, reducing the stress to 1 to 1.5 tsi (which is within the compression strength of most hardwoods).
quote:
Sure we do. It was only 5000 years ago. There is a lot of evidence. ... other than that Mesapotamia had a wetter climate.
This shows up the differences in paradigms between you and I. For me, 5000 years ago was pre-Flood and that all 'ancient' cultures that have been dated earlier than the Global flood some 4000 years ago are dated in error. (yes, I am familiar with all the "evidence" for these 'ancient' cultures, but reject it as interpretation.) Thus, all these "ancient" cultures have no relationship to the pre-flood world.
quote:
There was no "general trend in largeness."
The 'general trend in largeness' that I was talking about is found in the fossil record, which I believe was buried in a global cataclysm and not the result of millions of years based on gradualistic interpretation. (yes, I'm familiar with all the "evidence" for millions of years of evolution, but reject it as interpretation.)
quote:
The first references I can find to box-girder design refers to construction in the 18oo's. And, in fact, some of the first attempts failed. The engineering experience just wasn't there. So we are to assume that Noah had such knowledge 5000 years previously?
As mentioned before, Noah need not have had the experience if he was building according to God's design. The idea that the Ark was a box-girder design is based on the idea that the Ark was a barge built to the ratio of 300x50x30
quote:
It seems to me that if you put hundreds of ten foot diameter beams in a boat 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall, you would have not much room for anything else.
A vessel of wood with the top deck/roof planking and the bottom planking 21" thick would be able to withstand the typical design stress required for modern steel ship design.
quote:
Your ark is smaller than typically proposed. 450' long by 75' wide by 45' tall is more typical.
I meant to say 300x50x30. This is the size mentioned in cubits. If an 18" cubit is used then you get 450x75x45. If a 21" cubit is used then you get 525x87.5x52.5
quote:
If tipped up on its edge, a box is equally likely to fall onto its top as its bottom.
The center of mass of a barge that has a draft 1/2 its height will be such that even when tipped abeam up to 90 degress it will be pulled back to the upright position. This assumes that all cargo stays in place (i.e. all animals remain in cages and all food and water remains in their containers).
quote:
Lets see those designs and calculations.
Lets supposed that the major stress bearing members of a barge shaped vessel were the top deck, keel deck and the two sides. For simplicity lets make them all 1 cubit thick constructed of wood. (for simplicity we well ignore transverse members, any other longitudinal members and decks) We will compute this as a box girder supported on two ends.
The Moment of Inertia of the crossection for the upper and lower members is
I = Ah^2(upper) + Ah^2(lower) + Ak^2(upper) + Ak^2(lower) - (A(upper) - A(lower)) = 21033.34 cubits^4.
Where area A=50, h^2=14.5^2, k^2=n^2/12=1^2/12. (k=radius of gyration)
The Moment of Inertia for the two sides is
I = 2(bh^3/12) = 3658.7 cubits^4
Where b=1, h=28.
The total Moment of Inertia is 24692 cu^4
The Section Modulous is
SM = I/y = 24692/15 = 1646.13 cu^3
Where y = draft
Displacement = W = 15*300*50*D = 225000D lbs
Where D is density of water.
Bending Moment = M = WL/8 = 225000D*300/8 = 8437500D cu-lbs
Where L is length of box girder/vessel.
Stress = s = M/SM = 8437500D/1646.13 = 5125.7D lbs/cu^2
For a 21" cubit and a water density of 0.03606 lb/cu^3 we can find the stress in psi as
5125.7*(0.03606)*21 = 3882 psi
This is the stress for a box-girder vessel supported on each end. However, the stress for a vessel supported full length in water is less.
The design stress for the cruse ship Savannah (545x78x30 ft) floating in water is 7.67 tsi. However, if the Savanna were to be put in dry dock and supported just on two blocks 545 feet apart, the calculated stress would be about 30 tsi. Thus the design stress is approximatly 1/4 the calculated stress as a beam supported on each end.
So if we go back to the calculation above for a wooden vessel the size of the Ark the stress would be 1/4 of 3882 psi which is 970 psi.
But what is the crush stress for some hardwoods?
White Ash 7410 psi
Yellow Birch 8170
Sugar Maple 7830
Black Locust 10180
Live Oak 8900
Soft woods
Douglas Fir 6360 psi
Western Hemlock 7200
Tamarack 7160
So, the computed design stress of about 970 psi is well within the crush stress of many hard and soft woods. Such a designed vessel is capable of passing the requriments needed for modern ship design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John, posted 08-26-2003 12:01 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by John, posted 08-28-2003 11:42 AM allenroyboy has replied
 Message 80 by allenroyboy, posted 09-03-2003 1:29 AM allenroyboy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 296 (52647)
08-28-2003 9:43 AM


Why doesn't somebody build an ark according to the dimensions of the Bible and see how well she sails? Take a leaf from Thor Heyerdahl's book. Now there's a research program for creationists.

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by John, posted 08-28-2003 10:04 AM crashfrog has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 296 (52657)
08-28-2003 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
08-28-2003 9:43 AM


quote:
Now there's a research program for creationists.
Tell me about it!
But I know why they don't do this. It would afterward be impossible to believe the myth.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 08-28-2003 9:43 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 08-28-2003 10:12 AM John has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 23 of 296 (52661)
08-28-2003 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by John
08-28-2003 10:04 AM


But I know why they don't do this. It would afterward be impossible to believe the myth.
I respectfully disagree.
These guys would find some excuse for it not working.
We didn't build it exaclty as Noah did because God told Noah how to build it and he didn't tell us.
God was watching over the Ark so nothing bad would happen to it.
Gopher wood must have been a lot stronger than the wood we used. After all, God told Noah which type of wood to use.
You know the sort of excuses I mean, anything to keep the myth alive and keep all those clergymen and creation 'scientists' on the gravy train.
Brian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by John, posted 08-28-2003 10:04 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John, posted 08-28-2003 11:44 AM Brian has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 296 (52675)
08-28-2003 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by allenroyboy
08-28-2003 3:21 AM


quote:
In the above mentioned article the author discusses the problem of permanent hogging deformation. Hogging can refer both to the typical flexing that ships encounter and to a permanent deformed condition. AKA "Hogged"
Why would you concern yourself with a permanent deformation? The boat was allegedly only afloat for a year, tops. This is an irrelevant issue.
quote:
Yes, all large vessels hog and sag in waves, but we are getting away from the point.
No. We are not. You are trying to get away from the point-- the sea-worthiness of the ark.
quote:
That point is that a streamlined ship is inherantly weaker for the same size and same construction material than a barge shaped vessel.
Yes. I have already granted that a barge is more evenly bouyant than a ship with a clipped bow and stern. What I dispute, is that it makes a difference in storm conditions on the open ocean.
quote:
Yes, the ark would hog and sag, however, the proper design can keep even a wooden ship from cracking apart.
Bloody hell, man! That is what we are talking about. No one today can make it happen. Why do you think a copper age goat herder could manage it? The issue, in fact, is whether ANY design at all would work considering the materials. The Chinese got close, perhaps even managed a larger craft, but we don't know how they did it. The things may well have been braced with iron or steel. The Chinese had had blast furnaces since the 6th century BC-- 2000 years earlier. It doesn't seem an unreasonable thought.
quote:
The advantage of a streamlined design over a boxy barge is in moving through the water.
Not entirely. Pointed bows and sterns slice into waves rather than take the full shock of impact.
And you've missed the point. I'll repost it.
quote:
A barge may in fact be worse, since as the bow dives into the water its inherent bouyancy will drive it back up with greater force that than would the reduced bow of a streamlined ship.
The point is that the barge designs more evenly distributed bouyancy may cause more stress in rolling waves than would the design of a streamlined ship.
quote:
The strength of the barge shape makes up for any differences in stress encounted with waves hitting the vessel.
So you say. Do you know how much power is in a 60 foot wave hitting a flat surface head-on?
quote:
The comparisons I was making was between vessels of the same size and same construction material.
Then where are the modern 400 foot ocean going barges?
quote:
However, one can extrapolate from steel designs to wood designs provided you allow for differences in the strength of materials.
No you can't. The designs of steel and wooden ships are radically different, due to the differing properties of the materials. It is not that simple.
quote:
For instance, the main stressing bearing members on a steel ship about the size of Noah's Ark are the main deck and bottom planking (sic).
Sorry, but it doesn't take much though to realize that the steel sides of a ship are going to be its lengthwise strength. You seem to applying chord-truss dynamics to something that isn't a chord-truss.
quote:
Typically these are designed at 2 to 2.5 inches thick of steel to withstand the expected stresses of approximatly 9 tsi (tons per square inch) for that crossection area. A wooden ship of the same size would need to have the main stress bearing members (top and bottom) to be about 21 to 25 inches thick.
You cannot simply scale up the material. It doesn't work that way. If it did, we could built wooden ships of any size whatever, as long as we used enough wood.
quote:
This would spread the stress out over a larger crossection area, reducing the stress to 1 to 1.5 tsi (which is within the compression strength of most hardwoods).
You are forgetting about torsion, shear, elasticity, bending, and various shock loads. Wood is typically high is compression strength, but compression is the least of your problems. Most of the stress will be of one of the other varieties, especially torsion.
quote:
This shows up the differences in paradigms between you and I.
Yes, I like evidence. You like myth.
quote:
Thus, all these "ancient" cultures have no relationship to the pre-flood world.
Doesn't matter. Where is the big wood?
quote:
The 'general trend in largeness' that I was talking about is found in the fossil record, which I believe was buried in a global cataclysm and not the result of millions of years based on gradualistic interpretation.
Still, were are the big trees? Search the whole fossil record. Where are they?
quote:
As mentioned before, Noah need not have had the experience if he was building according to God's design.
Invoking magic does not constitute evidence.
quote:
A vessel of wood with the top deck/roof planking and the bottom planking 21" thick would be able to withstand the typical design stress required for modern steel ship design.
BS. A 400 foot long piece of wood 21 inches thick and supported at either end couldn't even support itself. Rolling over storm swells would simulate this condition as well as the reverse-- supported at the center-- over and over.
quote:
I meant to say 300x50x30. This is the size mentioned in cubits.
Cubits... aha.
quote:
This assumes that all cargo stays in place (i.e. all animals remain in cages and all food and water remains in their containers).
That is a very big 'if.' What do you think the chances are that everything stays put? After a few rolls, everything will torn loose.
quote:
Lets supposed that the major stress bearing members of a barge shaped vessel were the top deck, keel deck and the two sides.
I notice that you again ignore shear, torsion, etc.
quote:
But what is the crush stress for some hardwoods?[
Crush stress isn't the problem. Wood is decently strong in compression and tension. Wood is not nearly as strong in shear strength, torsion, and bending strength.
quote:
Such a designed vessel is capable of passing the requriments needed for modern ship design.
You have forgotten yet another requirement for a ship, modern or not. That requirement is that it be waterproof. The ship will twist and flex as it rides the storm swells. This twisting will cause the timbers to move relative to one another and break whatever water seal it initially had. This was a huge problem in much smaller wooden ships of the 17oo's and 18oo's.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by allenroyboy, posted 08-28-2003 3:21 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by allenroyboy, posted 08-29-2003 5:06 AM John has replied
 Message 46 by nator, posted 08-30-2003 7:20 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 296 (52676)
08-28-2003 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brian
08-28-2003 10:12 AM


I'm sure you are right. The hardcore would have excuses. I do think such a project would be huge blow to the creationist movement, though. And I think they know that.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brian, posted 08-28-2003 10:12 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Zealot, posted 09-02-2003 9:56 AM John has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 26 of 296 (52688)
08-28-2003 2:56 PM


I think Noah's Ark is maybe feasible, only if you let God pile on big miracle on top of big miracle. Of course, anything to do with the concept of a "young earth" runs counter to the worldly evidence, and fitting the flood and the major near extinction event into an "old earth" scenario is barely better.
Even if you can accept the mass of miracles, for God to execute a re-creation event in the manner of the "great flood" seem to be far unnecessarily cumbersome at best.
One might look upon the "great flood" as some sort of grand metaphor - Call it the "great purge". The ark would be the "mysterious refuge" for the select few who were to survive.
Still, no worldly evidence for, and a lot of worldly evidence against.
Moose

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 296 (52750)
08-28-2003 7:45 PM


Having some experience in both vessel design and construction, I've decided to try a little experiment. Using MacNaughton's Scantlings Rules for Wooden vessel construction, I'm gonna calculate the scantlings for a 450' wooden vessel. (There are other scantling rules, but I am familiar with MacNaughton's having worked in that design office for some time.) It'll take me some time as I have to load the calculations into my iMac and figure out the displacement to get the scantlings number. If I can get the time I may even sit down at my table and draft something out to be able to do the proper hydrostatics and stability calculations.
If someone could help me, I need-
# of animals/kinds (WTH is a kind anyway?)
Amount /weight of food
How much time Noah and his sons had for felling/milling the wood and constructing G-D's yacht?
My gut feeling is that the Ark is unfeasible. A wooden boat that size, with no way to control it during a tempest that would make the Perfect Storm seem like a summer Sunday sail, would most certainly broach, break apart and be lost with all hands (and paws).

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by John, posted 08-29-2003 1:31 AM Bonobojones has replied
 Message 29 by allenroyboy, posted 08-29-2003 2:55 AM Bonobojones has replied
 Message 31 by allenroyboy, posted 08-29-2003 3:28 AM Bonobojones has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 296 (52796)
08-29-2003 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Bonobojones
08-28-2003 7:45 PM


quote:
# of animals/kinds (WTH is a kind anyway?)
Yikes! You had to ask, didn't you? The answer? It depends. Two if you follow Genesis 7:9 and 7:15, but sometimes two and sometimes seven if you follow Genesis 7:2-4.
What is a kind? A species from which thousands of species can hyper-evolve in the few years following the flood and thus greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. I have seen figures ranging from 6,000 to 17,000 original kinds. I have yet to see a creationist define 'kind' in a meaningful way.
quote:
Amount /weight of food
Depends on the number of kinds. But I have got be eating 1000 to 1500 pounds in a year. An elephant would eat more like 44,000 pounds.
quote:
How much time Noah and his sons had for felling/milling the wood and constructing G-D's yacht?
We don't know. Noah is at least 500 when God starts complaining-- Gen. 5:32-- and 600 when the flood starts-- Gen 7:6. The first part of Genesis 6 makes it look like quite a bit happened between Noah's 500th b-day and the command to build the ark, so we should allow probably 50 years max.
Oh... and don't forget the really big door in the side-- Genesis 6:16.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Bonobojones, posted 08-28-2003 7:45 PM Bonobojones has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by allenroyboy, posted 08-29-2003 3:22 AM John has replied
 Message 41 by Bonobojones, posted 08-30-2003 11:50 AM John has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 296 (52801)
08-29-2003 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Bonobojones
08-28-2003 7:45 PM


quote:
Having some experience in both vessel design and construction, I've decided to try a little experiment. Using MacNaughton's Scantlings Rules for Wooden vessel construction, I'm gonna calculate the scantlings for a 450' wooden vessel.
I am really interested in what your results would be. I'm not acquainted with MacNaughton's Scantlings Rules. Are they the rules used for building 19th century sailing vessels? From what I've read one of the major problems with the rules of 19th century ship design was that there was absolutly no knowledge and testing of the strength of materials. Very few, if any, ever measured the stresses that ships encountered. To build a bigger ship one mearly scaled up from emperically based ship designs that had a better success rate than others. What most did not realize is that after a certain point in scaling up, a streeamlined, keel based ship design becomes so weak and flexible that nothing, not even steel bands, can keep it together.
All the modern methods of computation and measurement of stress in shipdesign came about with the invention of steel ships, especially during WWII when many of the steel Liberty ships broke apart and sank for no apparent reason. Out of the need to have trustworthy ships for the war effort came modern ship design with special emphasis on strength of materials and stress computations.
For these reasons, the design I calculated above is a keeless, box-girder barge design roughly similar to supertankers.
quote:
# of animals/kinds (WTH is a kind anyway?)
Amount /weight of food
The draft of the Ark is thought to be 15 cubits (i.e. 1/2 the height). With that knowledge you can figure the displacement without need to answer the questions you pose.
quote:
A wooden boat that size, with no way to control it during a tempest that would make the Perfect Storm seem like a summer Sunday sail
Experiments with a model in a wave tank (done in the 1980s) show that with a 300x50 length/breadth ratio the vessel automatically turns normal to the waves. But still, no one said that a 110 day ride in the Ark was a walk in the park.
[This message has been edited by allenroyboy, 08-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Bonobojones, posted 08-28-2003 7:45 PM Bonobojones has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by John, posted 08-29-2003 10:29 AM allenroyboy has replied
 Message 42 by Bonobojones, posted 08-30-2003 12:09 PM allenroyboy has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 296 (52803)
08-29-2003 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by John
08-29-2003 1:31 AM


quote:
and don't forget the really big door in the side-- Genesis 6:16.
Obviously, you know next to nothing about ship design. The one place that experiences the least amount of tension and compression stresses, the one place that experiences the least amount of shear stress is located on the side of a vessel midway between top and bottom and midway between bow and stern. Check it out. Take look a most any modern ship (especially cruise ships) and you will see that they have doors in the sides in the middle of the ship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by John, posted 08-29-2003 1:31 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by John, posted 08-29-2003 10:59 AM allenroyboy has replied
 Message 43 by Bonobojones, posted 08-30-2003 12:12 PM allenroyboy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024