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
™ Version 4.2
