Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 296 (53008)
08-30-2003 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by John
08-28-2003 11:42 AM


quote:
Where is the big wood?
I got yer big wood right here, buddy!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by John, posted 08-28-2003 11:42 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by John, posted 08-31-2003 1:28 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 296 (53009)
08-30-2003 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by allenroyboy
08-30-2003 4:43 AM


allenroyboy, I have begun a thread in this forum concerning how Noah and crew could have fed all of the animals for a year on board the Ark.
I have done some research and made some calculations regarding how one might sustain two small horses, as feeding and caring for horses is something I have education and expertise (check out my avatar ).
I'll post my calculations there now; I'd love your comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by allenroyboy, posted 08-30-2003 4:43 AM allenroyboy has not replied

Charlemange
Inactive Junior Member


Message 48 of 296 (53030)
08-31-2003 12:40 AM


Supposing the ark could've been built to spec, is there really a question as to whether it would float or not?

John
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 296 (53038)
08-31-2003 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by nator
08-30-2003 7:20 PM


rrrraaaoooohhh! A woman on horseback talking about big wood! I'm melting...
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nator, posted 08-30-2003 7:20 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 09-04-2003 10:12 PM John has replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 296 (53054)
08-31-2003 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Bonobojones
08-30-2003 12:30 PM


quote:
allanroyboy keeps using a single timber analogy for strength, seeming to forget a wooden vessel is a sum of its parts. All members, backbone, deck planking, framing, work together to give the vesswel its strength.
I have already said that I have made some simplifying assumptions to come to some rough conclusions. You are absolutly correct that a top deck, for instance, would consist of many parts, and that you need to compute the stresses for each part, considering its fastenings and add/subtract it all up to get a better estimate. However, no one has detailed plans for a wooden vessel of that size so it would be hard to do such a detailed study. It would also take the same specialized programs used for modern ship design to do the calculation properly. Which I don't have.
The calculations I did were based on the idea that all the parts of say, the top deck, were fastened together in such a way that they would tend to act as a whole unit rather than a bunch of individual pieces. Obviously you could not get such fastenings to act as if the parts were 100% of a whole, but you could get reasonably close -- possibly 80 to 90%.
quote:
What NA sources are you using?
Back in about 1997 John Woodmorappe and I had a rather extended email discussion with a self-proclaimed NA who claimed that a wooden Ark was impossible. That discussion triggered an extensive, if not exhaustive, literary search and study. From information supplied by the NA and what we found elsewhere, we concluded that the NA was misinformed. One thing we found is that most NAs know next to nothing about wood shipbuilding. This not a condemnation, just a simple observation. After all, how many large wooden sailing ships are in demand today? All training is aimed at building steel vessels. All computer aided design programming is aimed at building steel ships. The art of woodship building is nearly lost.
The formula I have been using have come from the NA and an assortment of books and articles on shipbuilding. My minor background in Civil Engineering helped me as I studied the issues and problems. I don't claim to have all the answers and I'm willing to learn more about Naval Archetecture.
quote:
All members, backbone, deck planking, framing, work together to give the vesswel its strength
By backbone I believe that you are referring to a Keel. The box-girder design ive been discussing does not have a Keel or backbone. In fact, it is the Keel/rib design of woodships that limits the size of woodships. I explained elsewhere about why that is so.
quote:
I hope to start the calcs this weekend, work permitting.
I look forward to studing the results of your work. However, if your calculations are based on a Keel/rib design, chances are very goood that your computations will show that a size of 450' is not possible. This is to be expected when using a Keel/rib design. However, as was posted elsewhere, such Keel/rib design is not comparable with box-girder design.
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Bonobojones, posted 08-30-2003 12:30 PM Bonobojones has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 296 (53056)
08-31-2003 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by John
08-29-2003 10:29 AM


quote:
How the hell do you get the draft without knowing how much weight is on the ship? This is inane. Where did you get this figure? It isn't in the Bible. Who made it up for you?
"The waters rose and covered them mountains to a depth of 15 cubits..." (Gen 7:20) Since Noah and family were closed up in the Ark, it is highly unlikely that they were out making soundings to see how deep the water was. But, they would be able to notice if the ship were ever grounded during the voyage. Since it did not come to rest until after 150 days, then the water upon which it floated that whole time in must have been deeper than the draft. Since they likely started in a mountainous area and landed in a mountainous area, then the water over the mountians had to be deeper than the draft of the Ark. Since they mention 15 cubits as the depth of the water rather than any other number, then it is likely that 15 cubits was the draft of the Ark.
quote:
What experiment? Who performed it? Were are the results published? How large were the waves? How was the model constructed? The devil is the details.
In the 80's there was a movie called "The Search for Noah's Ark." In it was a segment showing a model Ark in a wave tank. A book was also published by the same title that had all the information that appeared in the film. What details I remember is that the model was about 6' long and it was encountering waves a few times higher than the vessel and that the wavelength was nearly twice the length of the model. The film clip showed the model turning normal to the waves with the passage of a few waves. To be sure this experiment did not take into consideration what ever winds there might have been.
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by John, posted 08-29-2003 10:29 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by John, posted 08-31-2003 12:39 PM allenroyboy has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 296 (53074)
08-31-2003 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by allenroyboy
08-30-2003 4:43 AM


quote:
It proves what I've been trying to say all this time! It shows that you cannot apply modern, typical, homogenous box-girder design to wooden sailing vessel design of at least the 19th century.
Actually, you haven't previously said quite that.
quote:
In this design the "reeds" cannot be free to slide past each other.
This may be the largest problem with your box-girder idea. How do you propose that this be done?
I claim some expertise in wood construction because I have been dealing with it every day for the past ten years. My experience tells me that connecting these massive timbers one to the other in such a way that they neither move nor leak is virtually impossible-- and this with modern fasteners. Noah hadn't a chance. Some of the problems:
1) The initial connection. What did Noah have to use as fasteners? Dowels, tenons, copper nails (maybe)-- that is about it. And this to connect timbers more than a foot and half wide. Granted, timber framers can and do this all the time. Timber framers do not have to deal with waves in a stormy sea.
2) As has been pointed out before, your logs will warp, crack and twist as they dry. This action will break many of the joints. If Noah starts with dry wood, then you have the problem of connecting wood that is already twisted-- huge pain, trust me. And, dry wood will re-absorb water once it gets wet. This, also, will be hell on your joints.
quote:
Not only do they need to be securely fastened to the frame, but they also need be securely fastened to each other (which was not done in the old ships).
Check your ship building history. The planking on Roman ships was mortised together. The clinker-built design design relied upon the strength of the shell and is found as early as aboput 2500 years ago. The planks were in fact lapped and fastened together. The caravel-built design is the keel and rib design you mean. The caravel was adopted because it allowed for longer ships. Sounds like you want to do both.
quote:
Just because ocean going barges are not built as large as the Ark, that does not mean that they could not be built that big.
It does mean that you cannot cite such barges as evidence, as you did.
quote:
Just consider supertankers.
Just consider that they are steel.
quote:
So as you can see, the computed Shear Stress (Fv) is far below the maxim shear stress parallel to grain of most any wood. Your concerns about shear stress are not very well founded.
What I don't see are estimates of the sheer load on a ship moving through storm swells. I don't see shock loads, which can be orders of magnitude greater than static loads. And I don't see torsion loads which would, at the very least, wreak havoc on your water seals. In other words, there isn't much useful in your figures. No one in there right mind would build a ship based on these considerations and without the one I've mentioned. It seems you are spitting out numbers without much understanding.
quote:
This is contrasted with the distance between top and bottom surfaces of box-girder designs where, like in my ark design, the distance between the top and bottom is some 45 feet.
Assuming the structure redistributes the loads properly...
quote:
They would be securely fastened at the verticies and the entire substructure would be diaganally cross-braced longitudinally and transversely.
Please don't forget the fastening methods Noah would have had at his disposal. Securely fastening the joints isn't going to be possible without steel plates and bolts-- and lots of them. You MUST take this into consideration. You can't consider these joints as rigid structures. They aren't. A better tack is to consider them hinges. For example, a mortise joint is very strong in one direction, strong in two directions, less strong in another two, and damn sad in the final direction. It is also vulnerable to shear. It is not enough to tell me that "it will be designed so the joints only take load in the stronger direction." You must show me the design. You must tell me how it is to be designed to make best use of the joints.
And try not to forget that we have to get tens of thousands of animals into this rig.
quote:
Where are your calculations to back that up.
Don't need 'em. You've ignored far too many factors. It is your design, you do the work.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by allenroyboy, posted 08-30-2003 4:43 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by allenroyboy, posted 09-01-2003 5:02 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 296 (53075)
08-31-2003 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by allenroyboy
08-31-2003 6:23 AM


quote:
"The waters rose and covered them mountains to a depth of 15 cubits..." (Gen 7:20)
This has nothing to do with the draft of the ark!
quote:
Since they mention 15 cubits as the depth of the water rather than any other number, then it is likely that 15 cubits was the draft of the Ark.
No it isn't. Your induction just silly. There is no relation between the depth of the flood and draft of the ark. -- added by edit-- I was thinking that perhaps the Bible made some statement to the effect that the ark started floating as the waters reached 15 cubits. But that isn't the case. -- end edit--- The conclusion is unjustified.
quote:
In the 80's there was a movie called "The Search for Noah's Ark."
LOL...!!!! I've seen that 'test.' LOL................
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 08-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by allenroyboy, posted 08-31-2003 6:23 AM allenroyboy has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 296 (53131)
08-31-2003 9:19 PM


After some research
I find that Arkies can't seem to agree. John Woodmorappe giver a displacement of about 20,000 tons with a 23' draft, yet David Collins says 7240 long tons with a 7.5' draft.
bibblicalcreation.org.uk
THAT is a heck of a lot of freeboard! Generally, though, 20,000 ton displacement seems to be the one most of those folks seem to agree on.
I have given a quick look at Woodmorappe's bbook on Noah's Ark and on first impression, it seems well written but feels flawed. I am even more suspicious of his qualifications when I find out it is a nom de plume of a creationist highschool science teacher. No agenda there, eh?
Scantlings have been entered, but a true calculated displacement has yet to be calculated.
"This rule is bbased on the displacement (total weight) of the vessel in a fully loaded condition. The displacement is expressed as the number of cubic feet of the [vessel's] hull beneath the load water line (LWL)" We will have to assume a Design Water Line (DWL). When my board is creared, I will have to draw out a profile, plan view and 10 sections, actuall only one if we assume a rectangular box shape. From this, I can run my planimeter to calculate the 10 sections needed to use Simpson Rule to figure an accurate displacement.
Storing the wood also seems to be a problem. Boat lumber should have about 12% moisture. Green wood is a no-no and too dry wood will absorb a lot of water when the vessel is splashed and could actually spring planks. Saw that happen once. Not a pretty sight.
Good point abbout the animals. The more I look into this whole thing, the more I find Arkies waving their hands. Animal infants, carnivors eating plants, saltwater fish surviving massive amounts of fresh water. Suspended animation even? chuckle

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John, posted 08-31-2003 10:16 PM Bonobojones has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 296 (53134)
08-31-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Bonobojones
08-31-2003 9:19 PM


Re: After some research
quote:
I find that Arkies can't seem to agree.
Par for the creation science course... It reeeeaaaaally would help if there were a consistent hypothesis.
Are you following the other active ark thread?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 08-31-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Bonobojones, posted 08-31-2003 9:19 PM Bonobojones has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 296 (53155)
09-01-2003 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by John
08-31-2003 12:28 PM


quote:
2) As has been pointed out before, your logs will warp, crack and twist as they dry. This action will break many of the joints. If Noah starts with dry wood, then you have the problem of connecting wood that is already twisted-- huge pain, trust me. And, dry wood will re-absorb water once it gets wet. This, also, will be hell on your joints
One would of course propose that the wood was properly cured before any forming of the members began and before the construction of the vessal began. Thus warping may not be that much of a problem.
As for re-absorption of water, this is something to prepare for. "And coat it with pitch inside and out." Gen 6:14 This implies that some kind of sealant was administered to the hull both inside and out. To be sure, water would still be absorbed, but it would be limited. And all the vessel needed to do was to float for 150 days.
quote:
Check your ship building history. The planking on Roman ships was mortised together. The clinker-built design design relied upon the strength of the shell and is found as early as aboput 2500 years ago. The planks were in fact lapped and fastened together. The caravel-built design is the keel and rib design you mean. The caravel was adopted because it allowed for longer ships. Sounds like you want to do both.
I believe that some of the ancient egyptian boats were also mortised together. The ones I was refering to, apparently, as never doing that was the caravel. By old, i was meaning a few hundred years and not ancient -- a few thousand years. While the caravel design could mean longer ships, there is still a size limit. The Box-girder design allows for even longer and bigger ships. And why not use dowels or mortises to fasten timbers together? There is certainly no rule against it.
quote:
It does mean that you cannot cite such barges as evidence, as you did.
OK, hold on, for what reason did I make reference to barges. Originally I said:
quote:
"Barges ususally do not have that problem (hogging)."
I was comparing a barge with a streamlined vessels in reference to which one was inherently stronger than the other. You then changed the subject by stating:
quote:
"Perhaps because barges are not typically run in the open ocean under storm conditions worse than we can imagine?"
To which I responded that there are ocean going barges.
quote:
"a simple search on the internet will find that there are several ocean going barges and companies that construct them."
In response you then again changed the subject.
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?"
I attempted to get back to the main subject of comparison between the streamlined design and the barge design:
quote:
"The comparisons I was making was between vessels of the same size and same construction material."
To which you then again changed the subject:
quote:
"Then where are the modern 400 foot ocean going barges?"
I responded in kind by noting:
quote:
There has probably not been any need or demand for any that size. Just because ocean going barges are not built as large as the Ark, that does not mean that they could not be built that big.
To which you now respond:
quote:
"It does mean that you cannot cite such barges as evidence, as you did."
To which I must ask, "Evidence as what?" Do you mean evidence for my first reason for comparing the barge design with a streamlined design or for one of the changes in subject which you introduced?
quote:
What I don't see are estimates of the sheer load on a ship moving through storm swells.
I believe that the sheer stress computation I did was for a ship experiencing a standard L/20 design wave, which I believe is considered the worst case. What other sheer do you feel that I have missed?
quote:
I don't see shock loads, which can be orders of magnitude greater than static loads. And I don't see torsion loads which would, at the very least, wreak havoc on your water seals. In other words, there isn't much useful in your figures.
I'd be more than happy to consider shock and torsion loads, but have not yet found formula with which to compute these factors.
quote:
Securely fastening the joints isn't going to be possible without steel plates and bolts-- and lots of them.
I often hear such polemics but I have yet to see any fact and figures with the polemics.
quote:
You must show me the design. You must tell me how it is to be designed to make best use of the joints.
Unfortunatly, this medium of communcation does not lend itself well to showing designs. But you are correct that seeing a design would be very useful.
Let me see if I can describe the joint design for the framework I believe would be quite possible. Consider 3 squared timbers about 1 cubit thick that cross each other at a sample joint. Lets start with a horizontal longitudinal beam that runs the full length of the ship. A transverse beam that runs the full width of the ship crosses over and sets on the top of the longitudinal beam. They are pinned together by a large hardwood dowel that runs up through each beam. As it stands these beams could be able to move in the horizontal plane with the pin as the pivot point.
Next a full length vertical timber is placed in one of the 4 verticies formed by the two horizonal beams. And, it is pinned to each of the horizontal beams with dowels that run through each member like the first dowel. The vertical timber will keep the two horizontal beams from moving horizontally. And, The vertical timber would not be able to move in either of the vertical planes with one of the beams because the other horizontal beam would prevent the movement. The dowels and the flat contact surfaces between the timbers would provide much resistance to movement at each joint.
the joint might look something like this:
'''|/
--|--
./|
quote:
Where are your calculations to back that up.
Don't need 'em.
quote:
You've ignored far too many factors. It is your design, you do the work.
You have yet to show that the factors I may not have yet included in my design are fatal to the design. There are no facts and figures with your polemics. Polemics without hard evidence doesn't hold much water.
{The above message's quotation structure was a big mess, including a big series of nested quotes. Previously, it required the use of the now banished "quote reply" button to get something like that. I have cleaned it up as best I could. I hope the results are true to the intents of the message. Perhaps further editing is called for. -- Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-01-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by John, posted 08-31-2003 12:28 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by John, posted 09-01-2003 1:40 PM allenroyboy has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 296 (53230)
09-01-2003 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by allenroyboy
09-01-2003 5:02 AM


quote:
One would of course propose that the wood was properly cured before any forming of the members began and before the construction of the vessal began. Thus warping may not be that much of a problem.
Allowing the wood to dry, and then reshaping it would help with the warping, cupping and twisting. You also loose a lot of size this way, in all dimensions. Thus, your absurdly large trees must start out even larger. By the way, you never showed me those mega-tree fossils. You may also be interested in a list of the trees we know Noah would have had nearby.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.execulink.com/~wblank/20010820.htm
Drying would not alleviate the problem of cracking. Lumber that size well develop some magnificent cracks, and those are good neither for strength or leak-proofing.
quote:
As for re-absorption of water, this is something to prepare for. "And coat it with pitch inside and out." Gen 6:14
Indeed. Pitch may have been adequate preventative of water reabsorbtion, but there are still problems with the idea.
1) What is the source of the pitch? This is a big boat. You'll need tons of the stuff.
2) This boat is going to take years to build and to cover with pitch. This means that some pitch will always be older than other pitch, and pitch needs to be reapplied frequently to be effective. I can't find exact figures for repitching frequency but it appears that sailors spent considerable time at the task.
3) How does Noah pitch the bottom of the boat?
quote:
To be sure, water would still be absorbed, but it would be limited. And all the vessel needed to do was to float for 150 days.
That is five months afloat, but remember that the ship had to be waterproof for longer than that. Even grounded, if it leaked animals would drown. As stated, repitching had to be done frequently even if pitched fully before the flood, Noah et al would have had to repitch the ship during its trip. Eight people are not enough for the task, and Noah had no access to the outside of the ship-- sailors were lowered over the sides to pitch the ship's joints all the way down to the water line.
Storing the pitch and melting it for use is another problem to add to the many. Noah would have had to have built a fire in this methane filled box.
quote:
And why not use dowels or mortises to fasten timbers together? There is certainly no rule against it.
There is no rule against it, but nor will these joints give you the strength you need. The joints are weak in several directions, depending upon the joint, and cutting these joints out of your timber weakens the timber as well-- yet another calculation that you are not including.
quote:
I was comparing a barge with a streamlined vessels in reference to which one was inherently stronger than the other. You then changed the subject by stating:
This was no change of subject. You stated that barges do not have the problem of 'hogging.' What you meant was that barges do not become permanently hogged with time in the manner that some other ships do. There is a difference. Hogging occurs whenever a ship rides over a swell. This will happen to any ship. Oil-tankers-- which you have compared to barges-- are designed to do this. The ark is not going to have time to permanently hog no matter what its design, so your insistence upon permanent hogging is irrelevant. The ark is also going to be riding massive swells and it will hog, so it is dishonest to insist that it won't have hogging problems.
We've also been through this 'inherently stronger' idea. That two designs perform differently in different conditions does not make one 'inherently stronger.' And comparing the two designs as they perform under conditions that do not match the conditions of the flood is invalid.
quote:
To which I must ask, "Evidence as what?" Do you mean evidence for my first reason for comparing the barge design with a streamlined design or for one of the changes in subject which you introduced?
Evidence as what? Evidence that a barge won't have hogging problems on the open ocean.
quote:
I believe that the sheer stress computation I did was for a ship experiencing a standard L/20 design wave, which I believe is considered the worst case. What other sheer do you feel that I have missed?
The problem is that you have only considered sheer in one direction, not multiple direction at the same time. Worst case will be a walk in the park compared to this flood, at any rate.
quote:
I'd be more than happy to consider shock and torsion loads, but have not yet found formula with which to compute these factors.
All of this has been static load? How can you pretend to compensate for waves by calculating static loads?
quote:
I often hear such polemics but I have yet to see any fact and figures with the polemics.
It comes from building things with wood. Have you ever tried it?
quote:
Unfortunatly, this medium of communcation does not lend itself well to showing designs. But you are correct that seeing a design would be very useful.
I'm sure Percy will post your diagrams for you, if you ask. He has posted images for other people.
quote:
The vertical timber will keep the two horizontal beams from moving horizontally.
No it wouldn't. It sounds good, but it wouldn't work. Lets see. We secure the long horizontal timber, sit a 45 foot long timber on top ot it-- the full width of the ship. And wedge another timber, vertically, into one of the vertices. We peg it all together. Now, I am quite sure that I could stand at the end of that 45 foot timber, opposite the joint, and break that joint by pushing parallel to that first horizontal member. It would likely snap the peg between the 45' timber and the first horizontal timber, but there is a decent chance of snapping the peg between the horizontal and vertical timber. I could also break the joint between the 45' timber and the vertical timber by standing on the end of the 45' board, or by lifting up on that same board-- though for this I'd need help due to the weight of the timber. The ocean wouldn't have that problem.
I know this because I have built similar joints.
quote:
You have yet to show that the factors I may not have yet included in my design are fatal to the design.
Lol... Please, build your ship! What you've given so far is the equivalent of a stick drawing of a car consisting of two wheels with line connecting them, and claiming that it will run 500 miles per hour. If I were to try to work up figures I'd have to make up 99% of the design. That isn't a terribly reasonable request.
quote:
There are no facts and figures with your polemics. Polemics without hard evidence doesn't hold much water.
Sticks and stones. I am not responsible for designing your boat. The fact that you have not included shock loads ought to be enough to ground the enterprise. You've got hurricane conditions here, bud. A lot of things will float on still water, but through in some hundred foot waves...
You have, in fact, been given a lot of facts by myself and others. I haven't seen you incorporate any of them into your design. You have a ship made of unknown timber of unprecedented size fastened together with insufficient joint assemblies, waterproofed with pitch from an unknown source and without concern for the need for frequent repitching. Your calculations are based on static loads and your ship would have to survive the mother of all hurricanes without rudders or power. Please...!
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by allenroyboy, posted 09-01-2003 5:02 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by allenroyboy, posted 09-05-2003 2:10 AM John has not replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 296 (53235)
09-01-2003 2:03 PM


first calculations
Not having seen the T.V. show on the Ark, I can’t comment on the tank testing that they did, but I assume it is just like testing done on merchant and naval vessel. That sort of testing is good for testing performance and some stability, but not for strength of the design. For that one would have to construct a fully scaled model, plank on frame, and subject it to various forces to destruction. This is almost never done in tank tests, so testing is done on computers. Do you have any computer modeling data to share with us? None of the Ark sites I have visited give any hard data, just so-and-so reports this and information from an uncited source reports that.
The scantlings rule I used can be purchased from MacNaughton Associates at macnaughtongroup.com home page yacht design marine publishing liveaboard catalog harbor gallery yacht design school yacht brokerage
I used the Seine River barge design as the model. These are almost totally rectangular, with a small amount of curve in the bilge and a bit of rounding at the ends.
LOA -450’
LWL-450’
BWL-75’
Draft-23’
Freebboard-22’
Disp.-22,178.6 long tons (volume, not actual)
Plank thickness-13.785 (min. single plank)
Plank thickness-10.33875 (ea. Double planked)
Frames, double sawn, S&M-22.975 (ea.)
Frame spacing-137.85 (min. on centers)
Trunnel fasteners dia.- 5.169375 (assuming no metal fasteners)
Keel, molded-64.33 (min.)
Keel, sided-128.66 (min. at widest point)
Stem, sternpost, horn timber, S&M-55.14
Bilge stringer, thickness-13.785
Bilge stringer, width-192.99
Clamp/shelf, S&M-43.193
Floor timbers spacing- as frames
Floor timber, sided-22.975 (min)
Floor timbers, molded-45.95 (min)
Partner knees, sided-22.975 (min)
Partner knees arm legth-201.03125 (min.)
Weather deck beams-as framing ( as the stresses on the vessel flow to all point, the
Decking- as planking deck should be as strong as the hull)
Butt blocks- sided as planking. Oak.
If a truly flat bottomed structure is required, my guess would be to have the chine logs sided and molded to 64.33 min. Planking should run longitudinally, not transverse.
All structural members should use keyed hook scarfs at least 12:1 when required.
Interior deck clamps as weather deck. Beams and decking as weather decks.
Materials:
Structural members- White Oak or wood of similar properties.
Longitudinal members-Teak, Honduras mahogany, longleaf yellow pine.
Planking- white oak, mahogany, longleaf yellow pine, white cedar, teak.
Decking- Teak, longleaf yellow pine.
Trunnels- Locust or white oak.

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Coragyps, posted 09-01-2003 2:24 PM Bonobojones has not replied
 Message 108 by allenroyboy, posted 09-05-2003 5:54 PM Bonobojones has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 59 of 296 (53239)
09-01-2003 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Bonobojones
09-01-2003 2:03 PM


Re: first calculations
Materials:
Structural members- White Oak or wood of similar properties.
Longitudinal members-Teak, Honduras mahogany, longleaf yellow pine.
Planking- white oak, mahogany, longleaf yellow pine, white cedar, teak.
Decking- Teak, longleaf yellow pine.
Trunnels- Locust or white oak.
Nope. All gopher wood, dang it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Bonobojones, posted 09-01-2003 2:03 PM Bonobojones has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John, posted 09-01-2003 2:28 PM Coragyps has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 296 (53243)
09-01-2003 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Coragyps
09-01-2003 2:24 PM


Re: first calculations
Lol... That should be a trick, as we don't know what 'gopher wood' actually is.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Coragyps, posted 09-01-2003 2:24 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Bonobojones, posted 09-01-2003 4:54 PM John has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024