Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About that Boat - Noah's Ark
John
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 296 (54059)
09-05-2003 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Zealot
09-04-2003 11:56 AM


quote:
No mind game. You might see it as a mind game, but the very basic principles of Christianity (for instance) is very opposed to any type of deceit.
The principles of the faith are irrelevant. We aren't talking about the faith, but about the behavior of creationists-- AIG, etc. Deceit is rampant within the endeavor. Sorry. It is easy to prove falsified credentials and deceptive quotation, for example.
quote:
No point in believing in Christ and falsifying evidence...
I agree. Still, misinformation is the stock and trade of creationism.
quote:
God does not start to complain when Noah is 500.
Genesis 5:32 writes:
And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Genesis 6:1, the next verse, begins God's complaints about mankind.
Genesis 7:6 writes:
And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.
What is unclear?
I don't think the twenty years makes much difference, but so far, no one has been able to explain why it is 120 instead of 100.
quote:
Still a pretty long time to construct an ark or a type of wood that could well have become extinct.
Sixty years would be long enough, but only assuming he had help other those who accompanied him on the ark. But building the boat over a long time frame also raises problems associated with using very old timber in the construction or mixing old and new timber.
quote:
Yeah, constructing a floating 450 foot Ark would make us all believers wouldn't it ?
Not likely, but it would help. I'd bet on a huge surge in conversion should an ark be built and float.
quote:
Perhaps this might help...
You can quote the Bible or use some common sense. Your choice. Why, exactly do you think there is such a market for creationist information if not for the fact that this information is an important element of some people's beliefs?
quote:
We dont even know for sure the type of wood used, what it was constructed of, all we know is that the Great Designer was God himself !
We don't know what kind of wood was used, but we can assume it was some type of wood that grew in mesopotamia between about 4000-6000 years ago. There weren't any unnaturally strong woods in the area at that time, so it doesn't really matter that we don't know for sure. It is one of the pretty normal materials. Pick the best of the lot.
We don't know that God designed the boat. We know that a book claims God told Noah how big to make the boat. That is all. You can claim God handed over some blue-prints, but that isn't in the Bible.
quote:
Sheesh, if we can , we litterally have to extend that length by 8. 25 metres to reach the lenght of the ARK, yet that is impossible!
Bud. It doesn't work that way. If you were building a bridge, and had footing 200 feet apart, would you figure that if it holds at 200 it will also hold at 220 or 230? If you do, you are fool. Materials and designs have limits. When you exceed those limits you have catastrophic failure. Read about some major engineering projects. When a span is built longer than anything previous, engineers do not simply tag on a few extra feet.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Zealot, posted 09-04-2003 11:56 AM Zealot has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 296 (54066)
09-05-2003 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by allenroyboy
09-04-2003 10:05 PM


quote:
Pouring how much?
Hmmm... several times the current volume of the ocean. Surely you know that?
quote:
You seem to be under the impression that the Biblical Flood was caused by rain alone.
Really? In my post, I stated 'from whatever source.' You quoted the passage, so where did you get this idea?
It does not matter what the source of the water was. That much water coming onto the surface in such a short period of time would create hurricane-like conditions. Temperature and pressure differentials would whip things into a frenzy. This on top of the more typical damge caused by the massive flash flooding. Have you ever witnessed a flash flood? These things topple concrete and steel structures.
quote:
The Bible mentions two other ingredients involved in causing the Flood: 1. The break up of the fountains of the great deep, and 2. The opening of the windows of heaven. Neither one of them need have anything to do with rain.
You are loosing credibility.
1) ... a reference to an archaic cosmology, probably derived from the existence of water tables-- waters under the earth. I suppose we can call them springs. Water flowing rapidly out of a spring will cause just as much damage as rain. It isn't the falling rain that does the damage. The damage is done by water's piling up on the ground, flowing towards the low-points, causing mud-slides, and etc.
2) What in the hell would you call water falling from the sky if not rain? Not to mention that God specifically threatens to make it rain-- Genesis 7:4.
quote:
I am not saying that there was no wind at all, but the Bible says that the big winds did not start until after the Ark was already ashore. That evidence alone should tell you that what ever the Flood was, it wasn't just another rain storm, or hurricane.
It tells me that the ancient Isrealites had a terrible understanding of meteorology.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by allenroyboy, posted 09-04-2003 10:05 PM allenroyboy has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 296 (54067)
09-05-2003 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Bonobojones
09-01-2003 2:03 PM


Re: first calculations
Alright! A good start!
quote:
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?
I have a preliminary design that I've been working on, but nothing that would be ready for computer modeling. It depends upon how detalid a design is needed. I'd love to do that, but I just haven't gotten that far yet.
quote:
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.
I looked up some photos of Seine River barges. They apear to be open top barges based on the keel/rib design. I see that the scantlings make no mention of a top deck. This emphasizes the idea that the keel although nearly 12 feet wide but only some 5 feet high, is designed to deel with all the forces. This is like laying a 2x4 flat between supports and expecting it not to bend much when someone walks across it. Such a design is doomed to fail. The only possible way to attempt to save the design is to try to incorporate the sides of the design into stress bearing members. However, as was mentioned before, most ships built on the keel/rib design consist of a keel with a bunch of reeds poorly fastened together. That's where this design seems doomed to follow.
I was curious if dimentions of the frames and planking were computed from the supplied over all dementions or did you put those numbers in yourself?
Allen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Bonobojones, posted 09-01-2003 2:03 PM Bonobojones has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Bonobojones, posted 09-05-2003 9:19 PM allenroyboy has replied

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


Message 109 of 296 (54071)
09-05-2003 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by allenroyboy
09-05-2003 3:13 PM


One might relate this to rain, but rain doesnt come from a cloudless sky.
On the other hand, your pre-flood world would never have been cloudless. After all there's enough water vapor up there to partially drown a world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by allenroyboy, posted 09-05-2003 3:13 PM allenroyboy has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 296 (54072)
09-05-2003 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by allenroyboy
09-04-2003 10:47 PM


quote:
I never said that there was no wind.
I never said that the seas were flat.

You certainly implied as much. Remember, you brought this up to counter that the ark met with rough seas.
quote:
I mearly pointed out that high winds did not begin until after the Ark has already landed.
The Hebrew is 'ruach.' The word has a great many connotations most of which do not concern wind per se but spirit. It is the same word used in Genesis 1:2. "And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters." Claiming this means 'high winds' is stretching it a bit. It would be more accurate, but less poetic, the translate it as "God's magic."
quote:
The breakup of the "fountains of the great deep" may be a reference to somekind of geologic disturbance that disrupts the status quo.
Or to the common knowledge that there is water under their feet if they dig a little.
quote:
The 'Windows of heaven' may be a reference to cosmic influence of some sort.
Come on! You are adding so much interpretation to the Bible I can hardly see the Bible any longer. The event occurs as a result of God's threatening to make it rain. Put the two together. That, and the windows idea is common to other mythologies of the time and place. It was believed that there were windows in the sky that keep water from falling down.
quote:
It is possible that the flooding may have been more the result of tsumai run up rather than rain.
And THIS would not be as damaging as a hurricane???? Bud, you've just said "It wasn't something rough like a hurricane, but rather something gentle like a TSUNAMI." Are you serious?
quote:
Who knows, that may have occurred.
It would have occurred. You'd have swells hundreds of feet tall-- just a guess.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by allenroyboy, posted 09-04-2003 10:47 PM allenroyboy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Rei, posted 09-05-2003 6:58 PM John has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 111 of 296 (54079)
09-05-2003 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by allenroyboy
09-04-2003 10:47 PM


The breakup of the "fountains of the great deep" may be a reference to somekind of geologic disturbance that disrupts the status quo.
My favorite interpretation is that of Walt Brown. He has an online book claiming that there was a mile-thick chamber full of water ten miles below the surface. It broke through at the mid-ocean ridges, fountaining enough to launch the asteroid belt into solar orbit. No big waves, though, of course, and that 800-degree steam didn't bother the ark - gopher wood is probably part asbestos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by allenroyboy, posted 09-04-2003 10:47 PM allenroyboy has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 296 (54080)
09-05-2003 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by allenroyboy
09-05-2003 12:39 AM


Lets see...
Under most conditions of loading, the worst stresses in a beam are imposed at right angles to the direction of loading...
Right angles. That would be sideways. In other words, this type of load would be caused by waves smashing into the side of the boat. The only calculations you made, that I can tell, are of the boat's lengthwise bowing-- ie. bow to stern hogging.
Also, I notice that the author is discussing beams, not the whole ship.
quote:
I don't indent to say much more about shear failure because bending moments rightfully demand the most attention in ship desin.
The author wouldn't be talking about steel would he? Steel has an enormous shear strength compared to wood. Shear may well be a minor problem with steel hulls. This does not mean it is minor with wooden hulls. Again, your are failing to consider the differences in materials.
What happens when you bend a nail? It bends.
What happens when you bend a toothpick? It breaks.
See the difference?
quote:
I also calculated the shear forces for a box-girder design Ark and as you remember they are quite small.
As I remember you've ignored too many variables for any of your calculations to be worth considering.
quote:
I have focused most on the bending moments because those are the largest stresses any ship will encounter.
Maybe you need a primer on stress.
Escorts Guide | London Escorts Guide | Cheap Escorts London
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by allenroyboy, posted 09-05-2003 12:39 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by allenroyboy, posted 09-06-2003 4:25 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 296 (54086)
09-05-2003 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by allenroyboy
09-05-2003 3:04 AM


quote:
I am not the only one to think so.
... you may be the only one since 1917.
quote:
So. This experienced naval architect and engineer shows that it is possible to design a wooden ship the same size as a steel ship and be able to successfully withstand the stresses.
... in 1917. I haven't seen any proof of his theories.
quote:
Economics evidently was not a problem for Noah, because he built one.
Lol.... so did Utnapishtim.
Realistically, economics would have been a big problem for Noah. He and his sons couldn't have done it alone, and employees need pay. Even slaves need food. Noah was a nomadic herder. They are not known for accumulating wealth.
quote:
And somehow he solved the jointing problem, perhaps by using full length structural members.
Somehow? Not much of an argument. In fact, it isn't even admissable. The issue is whether or not the ark is possible. By claiming he must have solved the problem because he built the ark, is assuming that he built the ark and it worked. The argument is circular.
By the way, where are those really big trees?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by allenroyboy, posted 09-05-2003 3:04 AM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by allenroyboy, posted 09-06-2003 3:03 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 296 (54087)
09-05-2003 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Mespo
09-05-2003 10:40 AM


Re: Plagiarism is the nicest compliment

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Mespo, posted 09-05-2003 10:40 AM Mespo has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 115 of 296 (54088)
09-05-2003 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by John
09-05-2003 6:04 PM


Gravitational potential energy
If water is descending, it is gaining potential energy. If it is being driven out of the earth, it certainly isn't *losing* potential energy, and is at best staying neutral (otherwise, it wouldn't move). Unless the energy from the rain coming down is somehow being transferred to being the energy that is driving the water out of the ground, there is an awful lot of energy to disperse here if the water falling out of the sky is even worth mentioning.
This energy cannot just dissappear (unless you're going to invoke the God's Magic Clause). Where is it going? Clearly, eventually it's going to "heat" - but, seing as Noah wasn't parbroiled, this clearly wasn't an immediate effect. This would involve a tremendous amount - a nearly unthinkable amount - of kinetic energy being present on the surface, *No Matter How The Water Fell*. It doesn't make a difference whether it all poured onto the top of a high peak or sprinkled evenly across the earth - *the energy is still present and must be represented somehow*.
Or, you can resort back to the GMC. Your call.
Besides, you creationists are constantly relying on *tremendous* amounts of forces being present in the flood. Remember, enough to sweep exotons of the Earth's crust into mountains? And filled with lots of magic, too, like the magic that allows slow-cool igneous rock to form mixed in with sedementary from a flood, or the formation of sedimentary rocks that are hugely exothermic, or sorts out fossils without regard to physical characteristics, but only morphologically by steady linear progressions between traits around the entire world, etc.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by John, posted 09-05-2003 6:04 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by John, posted 09-05-2003 7:24 PM Rei has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 296 (54095)
09-05-2003 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Rei
09-05-2003 6:58 PM


Re: Gravitational potential energy
quote:
Besides, you creationists...
Are you absolutely sure you know my allegiances?
My comments about the falling rain not causing the damage was a response to the implication that the flood wasn't violent because not all of the water fell from the sky. Mine was a simple observation. Rainfall doesn't smash houses. One can stand in the heaviest downpours and suffer no harm, but that water accumulating on the ground and rushing downhill will cause damage. Thus, claiming the flood wasn't rough because it isn't all rain, doesn't work. The damage done by floods isn't the falling rain per se, but the collected water moving around on the ground. Of course, you are right. All that energy would add up to a lot, but I wasn't interested in getting that complicated. Several people have noted that all of this activity would whip up the mother of all hurricanes though.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Rei, posted 09-05-2003 6:58 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Rei, posted 09-07-2003 5:17 AM John has replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 296 (54117)
09-05-2003 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by allenroyboy
09-05-2003 5:54 PM


Re: first calculations
The scanlings number, cube root of the displacement in cubic feet, is the scantlings number which is entered into the formula. I posted the site you can purchase the rule from.
It is not just the keel, but all the longitudinals, as well as the planking, that gives strength. (Crushed deck beams will compromise the entire structure.) The deck specs were included.
I was using the barge as a hull form, not as a total model.
If Bible litteralist would take a fraction of the multimillion dollar ministries funding and fund a replica, then we'd know, wouldn't we? ICR and AiG, as well as people like Swaggert, Falwell, et al, could come up with, oh, let's say 25 mil, to get it started and all the labor could be 4-8 volunteers. I'm sure volunteers could be found for such a project. (Large ship replicas are currently being built all over the world. See the last 3 issues of WoodenBoat mag)Build the thing, how ever you like, fill it full of animals and float it in the North Atlantic for just the winter months, crewed by 8 people.
One rule, though. No modern conveniences, pelletized feed, MRE's, etc.
Could be fun, eh?
Sorry if the post is not quite organized. My 33 month old son wants to help me on the 'puter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by allenroyboy, posted 09-05-2003 5:54 PM allenroyboy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by allenroyboy, posted 09-06-2003 2:31 AM Bonobojones has replied
 Message 125 by Rei, posted 09-07-2003 5:38 AM Bonobojones has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 296 (54142)
09-06-2003 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Bonobojones
09-05-2003 9:19 PM


Re: first calculations
quote:
The scanlings number, cube root of the displacement in cubic feet, is the scantlings number which is entered into the formula.
Ahhh. yes. that is what I thought, I just wanted to make sure. The reason I wondered is because the numbers you got for the ribs (~23 in.)and planking (~24 in.)--double planked -- is fairly close the the measurements I was using of 1 cubit (~21 in.)for plank thickness and frame member thickness
quote:
It is not just the keel, but all the longitudinals, as well as the planking, that gives strength. (Crushed deck beams will compromise the entire structure.)
Do you remember the quote John posted (see page 3) about analyzing wooden ships? it says:
quote:
A wooden ship, especially as it ages, more closely resembles a rather weakly bound bundle of reeds. These reeds are free to slide past each other. ... Failures in longitudinal structure are infrequent and tend to be scattered almost uniformly throughout the vessel. The idea of "strength decks" or "extreme fiber" is largely irrelevant to the meaningful analysis of old wooden ships. Microscopic investigation reveal a generally low level of stress...
http://www.tricoastal.com/woodship.html
According to this quote, because the planks function like "reeds that are free to slide past each other" and because they experience a 'generally low level of stress' then they can add little to the overall stress bearing capacity of the ship. This means that the major part of the stress must be carried by the keel. And in this case it is like a 2x4 layed flat. This ship would not just hog and sag it would ripple.
However, if you were to fasten all the planks to each other such at they are not free to slide past each other, then you have another proposition altogether. In this case, The planks would then take on a large portion of the stresses. The ship would then behave like a box-girder.
quote:
The deck specs were included.
Ah, yes, I was looking for other teminology so missed it. If the top deck were constructed like the rest of the ship, and the planking fastened such at the planks could not slide past each other, then such a top deck would greatly increase the stress bearing capability of the ship.
You said these were your "first calcualtions" is there more to come?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Bonobojones, posted 09-05-2003 9:19 PM Bonobojones has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Bonobojones, posted 09-06-2003 4:04 PM allenroyboy has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 296 (54144)
09-06-2003 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by John
09-05-2003 6:53 PM


quote:
... you may be the only one since 1917.
perhaps...
quote:
I haven't seen any proof of his theories.
Hmmm. let me see. Whom should I think knows more about what he is talking about?... A vetern Naval Architect with over 20 years of experience at that time desiging and building wooden floating dry docks that could lift vessels 1/2 the size of Noah's Ark, and who submitted his plans and ideas to his peers, i.e. Naval Engineers, for approval. Or, a carpenter with 10 years experience. Gee, that's a tough call.
quote:
By the way, where are those really big trees?
Just down the road from here is Petrified Forest N.P.. I've measured some of the long logs at near 120 ft. The butt ends of some were 4 ft thick and the other end about 2.5 ft. Also in the area are stumps that measure over 6 feet across.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by John, posted 09-05-2003 6:53 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by John, posted 09-06-2003 10:18 AM allenroyboy has not replied

allenroyboy
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 296 (54146)
09-06-2003 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by John
09-05-2003 6:42 PM


quote:
Under most conditions of loading, the worst stresses in a beam are imposed at right angles to the direction of loading...
This statement, within context of diagrams in the text which I was not able to reproduce here, notes that the loading force is vertical and the stresses are normal to the loading force and lengthwise in the beam, not crosswise to the beam. These are the typical compression/tension stresses that a loaded beam experiences.
quote:
Also, I notice that the author is discussing beams, not the whole ship.
Again, the full context is a discussion of the whole ship as a beam.
quote:
Again, your are failing to consider the differences in materials.
What happens when you bend a nail? It bends.
What happens when you bend a toothpick? It breaks.
You cannot just take the material into consideration, you must also take into consideration its dimensions.
Take a 10 penny nail (3 inches long and 0.0157 in. in diameter) and apply a force to bend it.
Take a wood dowel 3 inches long and 0.0157 in. in diameter and apply a force to break it. That force will be approximatly 1/6 of that needed to bend the nail.
However, it will take approximatly the same nail-bending force to break a 3 inch long, 1 inch diameter wood dowel.
In the design of a wood ship, the stress bearing members are increased in cross-sectional area to match the expected forces just like we used a 1 in. diameter dowel to equal the force needed to bend the nail.
quote:
I said: I have focused most on the bending moments because those are the largest stresses any ship will encounter.
You said: Maybe you need a primer on stress.
Maybe I just need to listen to those who know what they are talking about...
quote:
I don't indent to say much more about shear failure because bending moments rightfully demand the most attention in ship desin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by John, posted 09-05-2003 6:42 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by John, posted 09-06-2003 10:57 AM 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