Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
34 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,757 Year: 16,793/19,786 Month: 918/2,598 Week: 164/251 Day: 52/65 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Something BIG is coming! (AIG trying to build full sized ark)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 180 of 261 (621316)
06-24-2011 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by MiguelG
04-19-2011 1:42 AM


terminology
Hi MiguelG, just a quick quibble

A barge is eminently 'seaworthy' in calm weather even in deep water though it is usually used in coastal and riverine environments.

Curiously, this is not what seaworthy means.

quote:
sea·wor·thy
–adjective, -thi·er, -thi·est. (of a vessel)
1. constructed, outfitted, manned, and in all respects fitted for a voyage at sea.
2. safe for a voyage at sea.

Included by inference is the ability to handle storms that normally occur at sea and sever weather that occasionally occurs -- being able to survive and operate in something like 90% of all weather conditions.

Mariners take safety at sea as a highly critical aspect of their occupation -- many times you don't get a second chance.

Now back to the humorous (and pointless) discussion.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by MiguelG, posted 04-19-2011 1:42 AM MiguelG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by MiguelG, posted 08-29-2011 7:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 193 of 261 (630998)
08-29-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by MiguelG
08-29-2011 7:37 PM


Re: terminology
Hi MiguelG and welcome back

I would also like to, once again, note that whilst I am arguing that large wooden vessels are technically possible (given the ancient references to the existence of some very large examples), it is counterproductive to belabor creationists and Ark-enthusiasts about the Ark being an 'impossible' vessel to either build or float.

I have previously discussed the issues of scale on the strength and stiffness of an Ark-like vessel, and noted that the purported ark did not have rigging or the stresses due to rigging. But this also means there is no stabilizing mechanism for such a vessel, which is the main issue I have with a barge like design. To my mind this makes the vessel possible to build but extremely uncomfortable (to say the least) to ride out storms in.

But I agree that such discussions are ultimately counter-productive and that discussions for and against the global flood on other issues are more to the point. For instance the fossil record show fossils on virtually every mountaintop, but those fossils show undisturbed marine ecosystems that have organisms decades old, in layer after layer, and so the evidence does not match the duration for the purported flood by any stretch of imagination that I can see that would benefit a creationist viewpoint.

Far better to attack the Ark myth with the many other logical fallacies inherent in it, like the inability to keep a representative pair of every animal on Earth onboard for even a few days, much less 40.

Plus the time it takes for the water to recede enough to uncover land. IIRC this amounts to almost a year afloat in an environment devoid of potable water and increasingly foul bilges.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by MiguelG, posted 08-29-2011 7:37 PM MiguelG has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 196 of 261 (631010)
08-29-2011 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Gullwind1
08-29-2011 8:06 PM


Re: terminology
Hi Gullwind1, and welcome to the fray.

It really seems that the problems inherent with wooden ships this large is an argument against the Ark, rather than for it.

The problem here is that the ark does not need to be a ship so much as a floating box. From a naval architectural point of view I don't see that it isn't possible, especially given the extremely vague description (outside dimensions only). One can argue that it must be either able to stay upright in a major storm or be self-righting in some manner.

But the believer can always argue that god/s helped, and in the end belief trumps logic and evidence in the fundamentalist mindset.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer

If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Gullwind1, posted 08-29-2011 8:06 PM Gullwind1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Gullwind1, posted 08-29-2011 10:49 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 198 of 261 (631078)
08-30-2011 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Gullwind1
08-29-2011 10:49 PM


design issues not a problem
Hi Gullwind1, thanks.

The design isn't as important as the strength of the material its built out of.

False.

The (proper) design incorporates the strength characteristics of the material used and equivalent shape characteristics of the individual members.

It may surprise you to know that wood is stronger than steel on a pound for pound basis in the direction of the fibers. Wood is an exceptionally good material to work with if you know and use the characteristics involved. I have a plywood kayak that I designed and built that is stronger than fiberglass ones, stronger than aluminum canoes, and only weighs 35 lbs wet. The plywood uses the cross grain laminations to provide strength in two perpendicular directions.

Traditional construction with framing timbers with the fibers in one direction and plating planks in the other direction do this as well.

To get the same strength all you need is the same (sectional modulus) x (material modulus), where the first comes from the shape characteristics and the second comes from the material used (in the direction under consideration).

... no wood is strong enough to withstand the stresses that waves place on the structure of a ship.

How big are those waves?

As you note, the worst stress condition is either (a) where the ends are supported by waves and the middle is in a trough or (b) where the middle is supported by a single wave and the ends project from the waves.

A free floating vessel (with no power and no means to turn the vessel) will turn broadside to the waves (because of the way the water moves in waves), normally causing the vessels to broach or roll over if they are not stable in that condition (hence the need for self-righting previously mentioned), and thus will not see those critical stress conditions.

You provide the stress and strain conditions to be met and an engineer could design a vessel made out of glued paper to meet them.

Then there is the effect of scale on the equations: the bending stress goes up with the square of the length of a member, the section modulus (geometry strength) of a beam goes up with the power 4 of the scale used. Double the length and the stress goes up 4 time, but double the dimensions of the beam and the strength goes up 16 times, so you can scale by the square root of 2 to match strength to stress (1.414 or 42% increase in size).

The only issue here is that the structure takes up volume inside the vessel, making the available space for animals smaller. Going from 100 ft to 450 ft is a length scale of 4.5 so this creates a stress scale of 4.5^2 = 20.25 and this means a member scale of 20.25^(1/4) = 2.12. I hardly see this as filling the interior with structure.

Ballast in the bilges would further deplete interior volume available and a sea anchor could also be deployed to control the position of the vessel relative to the waves, but this would be adding ad hoc design components that are not mentioned.

This takes us back to the question of what is the passenger list of people and animals and what are the accommodations necessary to carry them, as that is a much larger impact than the structure of the vessel.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Gullwind1, posted 08-29-2011 10:49 PM Gullwind1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Gullwind1, posted 08-31-2011 12:45 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 201 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2011 6:10 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 205 of 261 (631529)
09-01-2011 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Gullwind1
08-31-2011 12:45 AM


Re: design issues not a problem
Hi Gullwind1

But ships experience stress in all three dimensions and almost constantly, even in calm seas. You'd need so many structural members in so many directions there wouldn't be room for anything else. What you're saying is right, but shipbuilding is a lot different than building a house.

Curiously, I am talking about naval architecture and marine engineering design, not houses. You may want to look around at some information available. One site (note mine btw) I found is:

http://twextra.com/afc44y

quote:
FOR more than 40 years, I have worked as a naval architect and marine engineer. My work has involved designing vessels of various shapes and sizes, along with the mechanical and other systems that propel them. In 1963, while I was living in British Columbia, Canada, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses showed me that the Bible book of Genesis describes Noah’s ark as a long box, or chest. This description intrigued me, and I decided to look into it further.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with all his conclusions, but I don't think you can argue that it cannot be done, especially if you have not gone through the design process yourself.

In a global flood? With no land to block the wind and waves, swells a hundred or more feet high would be the norm, ...

More critical than wave height is wavelength, as that is what determines the hogging and sagging stress loads: these are greatest when the wavelength matches the vessel length, and when the wavelength exceeds the vessel length the stresses are actually reduced from those peak loads.

As long as the waves don't break, this can result in seaworthy behavior in small vessels subject to large waves. Sailboats in the roaring 40's for example. Also:

http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Tw-Z/Waves.html

quote:
When the wave builds and reaches a steepness greater than a ratio of 1:7, the wave breaks and spills forward. The wave has actually become too steep to support itself and gravity takes over.

So the wavelength of non-breaking (swells) 100+ft high waves would be over 700 ft and could easily exceed the length of the ark by a considerable amount, depending on the energy (height related) of the wave.

Think about Tsunami waves in the open ocean -- they cause very little disturbance to vessels at sea. Without a shore for the waves to run up on, there is no cause for the wave to build to a high peak or breaking wave, unless there is a LOT of wind.

... never mind a storm. ...

What storm? What specifically does the bible say about the weather conditions other than rain? What does it say about wind?

... I was broadsided by a ninety-footer in the Gulf of Alaska. We rolled 45 degrees and were completely underwater, and this was a 710 foot container ship. ...

That would be my point about the ride being uncomfortable, but again this could well be a wave with more energy (height related) than ones in the purported flood.

I also note that a normal container ship does not have the beam to length ratio of the purported ark -- it is made to fit the panama canal after all -- and this makes it more prone to rolling from a broaching sea.

Again, a sea anchor could prevent this broadside condition, but that is ad hoc (not mentioned in the bible), but this is also how small vessels generally ride out storms with waves larger than the vessels.

... The constant back-and-forth motion takes a toll on the structure. How long do you think your kayak would last if it was constantly flexed back and forth, up and down before something gave way? Would it last a year?

Given that it has lasted ~30 years with a lot of that tied to a cartop traveling at 60+ mph I do not see that being a problem. If anything it is stiffer than necessary and thus I could reduce the structure next time.

How long would the ark need to last? The rain purportedly only lasted 40 days.

I doubt glued paper would last in sea water for a year. It would probably work better than wood, though, because it is more flexible.

Laminated paper would be stiffer. Think of fiberglass made with chopped strand -- random fibers in a matrix of plastic.

Where are you going to get 450 foot long logs to use as structural members? In reality, you are going to have joints, and those joints are going to be flexing back and forth, all the time.

The believers will just say that trees grew that big. The other solution is to build up the beams with scarfed and sistered joints, a common practice to solve this very problem.

You make some good points, but history shows that wooden vessels this size just don't work in practice.

The reasons they don't work though are not due to size. Wooden sailing vessels reached their apparent limit with the 4 masted clippers, but the stresses were cause by the rigging.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Gullwind1, posted 08-31-2011 12:45 AM Gullwind1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Gullwind1, posted 09-02-2011 12:09 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 206 of 261 (631604)
09-01-2011 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Theodoric
08-31-2011 6:10 PM


Re: design issues not a problem
Hi Theodoric,

So you need 3 times as much wood to equal strength of steel.

Actually it would be 9 times according to your information.

That is an awful lot of wood.

Argument from incredulity.

How much steel would you need? Vessels much bigger have been built out of steel -- look at container ships for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebba_M%C3%A6rsk

quote:
The Ebba Maersk is a container ship owned by the Danish shipping company A. P. Moller-Maersk Group. The fifth of the Mærsk E-class,[1] it and its seven sister ships are the largest container ships ever built as well as the longest ships in use. It has a total TEU capacity of 11,000 TEU 14-ton containers by Maersk definition; however, with standard ratings it can hold 14,770 containers.[2] This rating goes by physical space rather than weight. Her beam is 183 feet (56 m), her length 1,302 feet (397 m), and she has a deadweight tonnage of 156,907. In May 2010, she was reported with 15,011 TEU[3] in Tangier, Morocco, the highest equivalent number of any vessel.

(1) Changing the scantlings to wood with the same resulting deadweight would not significantly affect the carrying capacity or the cargo volume. These vessels have large void areas (double wall sides and bottoms) for damage flooding control, and increasing the wood in these areas would reduce the amount of volume that could be flooded while retaining positive buoyancy, thus actually making them safer (if you could find a boatbuilder that would tackle such a job).

(2) This vessel is ~3 times the length of the purported ark, and so would need to be 9 times as strong for the same longitudinal bending stress, thus the purported ark could have structure about the same as the steel structure in this ship.

Sorry, but I just don't think this line of argument is persuasive.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Theodoric, posted 08-31-2011 6:10 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Theodoric, posted 09-01-2011 11:02 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 208 by Dirk, posted 09-02-2011 12:08 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 210 of 261 (631613)
09-02-2011 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Theodoric
09-01-2011 11:02 PM


Re: design issues not a problem
Theodoric,

Please show your workings for these assertions.

The bending moment is (wL^2/8) now triple L.(1)

This whole post of yours deals with steel not wood. There is a lot more at play here than just inherent strength. I am still waiting for you to show evidence that pound for pound wood is stronger than steel. I am not going to take your word for it.

My 15ft kayak is 35 lbs, an aluminum canoe, with less material (no deck) and the same length weighs more, and the kayak is stronger (doesn't flex as much).

Now I should say some wood rather than all wood, as the strength is variable, but one would tend to use the strong woods rather than the weak ones when building.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young%27s_modulus

quote:
Young's modulus is a measure of the stiffness of an elastic material and is a quantity used to characterize materials. It is defined as the ratio of the uniaxial stress over the uniaxial strain in the range of stress in which Hooke's Law holds.[1] In solid mechanics, the slope of the stress-strain curve at any point is called the tangent modulus. The tangent modulus of the initial, linear portion of a stress-strain curve is called Young's modulus, also known as the tensile modulus. It can be experimentally determined from the slope of a stress-strain curve created during tensile tests conducted on a sample of the material. In anisotropic materials, Young's modulus may have different values depending on the direction of the applied force with respect to the material's structure.

For many materials, Young's modulus is essentially constant over a range of strains. Such materials are called linear, and are said to obey Hooke's law. Examples of linear materials are steel, carbon fiber and glass. Non-linear materials include rubber and soils, except under very small strains.

Young's modulus is not always the same in all orientations of a material. Most metals and ceramics, along with many other materials, are isotropic, and their mechanical properties are the same in all orientations. ... Anisotropy can be seen in many composites as well. For example, carbon fiber has much higher Young's modulus (is much stiffer) when force is loaded parallel to the fibers (along the grain). Other such materials include wood and reinforced concrete. Engineers can use this directional phenomenon to their advantage in creating structures.


MaterialGPalbf/in2 (psi)
Steel20029,000,000
Oak wood (along grain) 111,600,000

Ratio of Young's modulii, E, is 200/11 = 18.2, and this means that the geometrical shape for the wood structure (moment of inertia) would need to generate 18.2 times the moment of inertia of the steel structural elements to have the same strength.

The moment of inertia, I, is bd^3/12(2)

For Iwood = 18.2 x Isteel this means that

(bd^3)wood = 18.2 x (bd^3)steel

keeping the same proportion of b to d means we can use 18.2^0.25 times the b and d of the steel structure = 2.06.

The cross-section area would be 2.06x2.06 = 4.41.

http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html

quote:

MaterialSpecific Gravitylbf/ft3
Steel, rolled7.93495
Oak, red0.7144

Ratio of weight for comparable structure is 1 cubic ft steel to 2.06 (b) x 2.06 (d) x 1 cubic ft oak = 495/(2.06x2.06x44) = 2.65

THEREFORE: Steel is 2.65 times heavier than oak for the same strength.

QED

Note that doubling the size of the members in a steel ship hardly compromises the interior volume.

Enjoy.



(1) where w is the uniform loading and L is the Length
(2) where b is the width and d is the depth

Note that oak is a heavy wood. This can also be done for pine with similar results:
Pine wood (along grain) = 8.963 GPa =1,300,000 psi
Ratio of Young's modulii, E, is 200/8.963 = 22.3
Iwood = 22.3 Isteel
22.3^0.25 = 2.17 x the dimensions
Pine, Yellow Southern, dry = 0.72 SG, 45 lbf/ft3
Ratio of weight for comparable structure is 1 cubic ft steel to 2.17 (b) x 2.17 (d) x 1 cubic ft pine = 495/(2.17x2.17x45) = 2.33
THEREFORE: Steel is 2.33 times heavier than pine for the same strength.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Theodoric, posted 09-01-2011 11:02 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by fearandloathing, posted 09-02-2011 7:53 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 212 of 261 (631673)
09-02-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Gullwind1
09-02-2011 12:09 AM


Re: design issues not a problem
Hi Gullwind1

Have you ever taken any classes in these subjects?

Yes.

Even if wood is as strong as steel along the grain, the stresses involved aren't.

This doesn't mean anything. Stresses are based on load and geometry, not the strength of the material. You can design to use the material strength to handle the stresses, whatever the material is. See reply to Theodoric (Message 210): wood along the grain is stronger than steel for the same weight.

I have gone through the design processes, and it doesn't work the way you say it does.

Curiously, I quoted a Naval Architect with 40 years experience that says you are wrong - that is the purpose of the link I provided. Just claiming it is wrong is not you demonstrating that it is wrong.

Reduced does not mean negligible.

Agreed, but what it does mean is that you can define the worst case based on the vessel geometry, and then design to it.

But they would still be lifting the bow and subjecting the ship to stress.

And that stress would still be less than the worst case design condition.

Swells are different than waves. ... They are nothing like tsunamis.

The shape of a wave is similar independent of cause, as it is governed by the physical constraints of water and gravity. A longer wavelength is more like flat water than a shorter wavelength for a vessel that has a shorter length than the wavelength. The purpose of mentioning the Tsunami wave is that a very long wavelength does not necessarily result in a high wave. What I said was

quote:
... there is no cause for the wave to build to a high peak or breaking wave, unless there is a LOT of wind.

You need to show reference to a LOT of wind in the narrative before you can assume it is there.

You're talking about apples and oranges. Swells are surface disturbances caused by wind and other things hundreds or thousands of miles away. In a global flood, those swells would have nothing to disperse them and could build on each other, regardless of the local wind conditions.

Like the roaring 40's, which changes dramatically depending on weather conditions. Some days can be quite calm.

In a steady state condition the swells would increase in wavelength in an open world wide sea.

As has been said before, if you invoke magic than anything is possible, but if there actually was a global flood then the weather would be drastically affected. Lots of moisture in the air, lots of heat being retained by the water, big storms.

But I'm NOT invoking magic, I am pointing out that you are making up stuff that isn't necessarily in the narrative.

Without any credible information on the actual weather and sea conditions from the narrative, you would have to show a vessel cannot survive in the best conditions that meet the narrative information, otherwise you are creating potentially false conditions.

In reality it would be a small one compared to the purported flood.

(A) how do you know this?

(B) a larger wave, once the length of the vessel is exceeded, makes less of a problem, as the water surface relative to the vessel become flatter.

Actually, it was worse than that. It was built in Wisconsin and had to be narrow enough to get through the St Lawrence Seaway. 710' long with a 78' beam. It was a big canoe. I always thought that was a poor choice for a ship intended for the Alaska run.

Yeah, but shipping companies make lots of poor choices with other peoples lives.

So you are comparing the stability of a vessel with a larger length/beam ratio and likely a higher depth to beam ratio and possibly a higher CG to the purported ark in order to say that the ark would be unstable?

Sure, but this increases the hogging and sagging stress. ...

How so? A sea anchor would be a load in a different direction.

... So you either have these stresses, or your doing barrel rolls. Neither option is particularly good.

Why barrel rolls if the swells are a long wavelength exceeding the length of the vessel? Large but long drawn-out swells are not necessarily a stability problem.

Again you need to show reference to a LOT of wind in the narrative before you can assume it is there.

Not a valid comparison. ...

You asked for it.

... It hasn't been in water for 30 years. I'm willing to be it hasn't spent a single year in the water in those 30 years. Riding on top of a car isn't quite the same thing either. And a kayak is a lot different that a 450' vessel. ...

Correct, the stresses on a rooftop are likely considerably higher than sitting in the water for a year.

... You can't just scale the equations indefinitely.

Sorry, but that is how actual design is done, by the equations, based on the calculated stresses and the material strengths.

Vessels larger than the purported ark have been designed - you rode in one - so we are not talking about extrapolating off the end of known data.

But they were in it for a year.

And what were the weather wind and sea conditions?

Still don't see it lasting a year.

Curiously, your opinion is not able to affect reality.

The believers can say anything they want. I'm looking at reality. ...

Are you? Without contradictory information you would need to assume the best case conditions from the information provided in the narrative.

We can look at trees that are known to exist and see if they are long enough and large enough to provide material needed to build a vessel to the parameters given in the narrative. From what I can see, they exist such that a vessel could be constructed with wooden boat building technology.

... And joints are not as strong as the beam itself, primarily because of the flexing that takes place. Eventually, there will be a failure.

Again, this is a design issue. The joints are not as neat as in a steel vessel, where material can be welded, but even in a steel vessel the joints are made with brackets to increase the strength and the joints compared to the middle of the beam.

This is why traditional wooden vessels used knees.

Source for this?

Google 4 masted clippers, and you will find videos of one of these vessels in a storm with the bow snaking around in response to loads from the rigging.

Then why did the Tesseriaconteras stay docked for its entire service life? It wasn't even a single hull, but it was too big to remain intact in anything but dead calm waters.

The loads on that vessel would be due to the oars when it was taken out. Sitting there it did not have those loads.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Gullwind1, posted 09-02-2011 12:09 AM Gullwind1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Gullwind1, posted 09-03-2011 1:07 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 214 of 261 (631923)
09-04-2011 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Dirk
09-02-2011 12:08 AM


Re: design issues not a problem
Hi Dirk, and welcome to the fray.

Maybe we should look at some actual wooden ships that approach the supposed size of the ark? See this list, which shows that all wooden ships over 100m in length suffered from severe structural problems, even when they were reinforced with steel.

Curiously, it appears that most of those vessels survived for the length of service required of the ark, certainly for the 40 day period of rain\flood that would account for the major stresses on the vessel (with the remainder of the time sitting in calm water?).

My point is that you cannot show that such a vessel as the purported ark cannot be built. The ark narrative does not provide much in terms of what the conditions were that needed to be survived, so it is difficult to gage the need for substantial structure. Was it a hurricane or just a rainstorm?

Then you have the type of service in question:

(1) all vessels with rigging on them (most of the ones on your list) are subject to high loads from the rigging. The loads are normally variable in direction and intensity, and this variation leads to working of these vessels much more than would occur in a non-rigged ship floating free.

(2) vessels under tow are also subject to loads from being towed that mean the total loads are more than would occur in a non-towed ship floating free.

(3) others have to have provisions for their intended use that jeopardize structure and storm survival (oar ports or gun ports in the sides).

The main issues are joint construction and sealing of the vessel. Joint construction was not addressed in the narrative, IIRC, so you are going on assumption in that regard. The sealing was apparently done by tar, which was still used in the golden age of sail.

Note that I am not arguing that the purported ark was actually built, just pointing out that you cannot assume that it couldn't be built without having a lot more information that is not available. IIRC there is no description of the internal structural elements at all.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dirk, posted 09-02-2011 12:08 AM Dirk has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 215 of 261 (631925)
09-04-2011 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by fearandloathing
09-02-2011 7:53 AM


Re: design issues not a problem
Hifearandloathing

Not really a fair comparison, the kayaks design has a lot to do with the reason it flexes less (no deck on a canoe).

I would bet the surface area for your kayak is less than that of the canoe, therefore which one would be less material?

Wouldn't it be better to compare a wood canoe to an aluminum one? Comparing a kayak to a canoe is like comparing an open river barge to a submarine.

Okay, try this:

http://www.osagian.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store...

quote:
Length  Width  Depth  Weight  Capacity  Persons
12' 29" 11" 46lb 400lb 1

Shorter, heavier, ~same girth (depth and width).

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by fearandloathing, posted 09-02-2011 7:53 AM fearandloathing has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 216 of 261 (631927)
09-04-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Gullwind1
09-03-2011 1:07 AM


Re: design issues not a problem
Hi again Gullwind1,

But your argument is only valid along the grain, which does not always hold.

My argument that wood is lighter than steel only applies along the grain. Now you are talking about sheer loads within the members, and this is a function of area vs stress.

Again, you define the stress conditions, and then we can design to meet them.

But still affecting it, over and over and over...

How much and for how long? Define the stress and you can design to meet it.

After the 40 days of rain don't we have a different survival condition, one that even a wounded ship could survive?

Why? I'm assuming nothing more than the conditions that would be reasonably experienced in a real-world situation Do you have some reason to think that there would mysteriously be no wind anywhere in the world during the flood? I think you need to support your assertion that there was no wind more than I need to support the assumption that there would be some and it would cause swells just like it does today.

How do you know they are reasonable if you don't have any information about the actual conditions? Assumption?

I didn't say there was no wind, I said that there was no real information on the wind, and that without information you are making stuff up to imply your case is stronger.

I've seen heavy rain with no wind, so it is possible.

http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/

quote:
7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.
8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;
8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;
8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Rising water. Some wind, but how strong not mentioned. No storm conditions mentioned other than rain.

That doesn't make the stress problem go away, it just means it won't be as bad as it could be. A vessel riding up and down 100 foot swells, even with a thousand or fifteen hundred feet between them is still subject to hogging and sagging.

Yes, and the loading would be significantly less with longer swells. The period of swells is related to the fetch of the wind (even little wind) so the swells could be very long but not very high.

And without any information to derive a reasonable sea condition there is no rational to assume one with sever loading conditions.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : link


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Gullwind1, posted 09-03-2011 1:07 AM Gullwind1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Gullwind1, posted 09-05-2011 10:39 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20114
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 260 of 261 (826909)
01-14-2018 8:47 AM


ARK PARK FAILURE -- Ken Ham blames atheists ...
I thought of starting a new thread, but then figured it would go here better.

This is old news but it came around again on the Facebook way-back machine ...

quote:
Creationist Ken Ham Blames Atheists For Ark Park Failure

A bitter Ken Ham blames atheists and the secular media for the perceived financial failure of his Ark Park.

In a recent blog post to his Answers in Genesis website, leading creationist Ken Ham laments the supposed power of atheists and the “secularist media,” complaining that they are damaging the reputation of his Ark Encounter, and the economy of the surrounding local businesses, writing:

Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream media, on blogs, and on well-known secularist group websites have attempted to spread propaganda to brainwash the public into thinking our Ark Encounter attraction is a dismal failure.

Sadly, they (atheists and the secular media) are influencing business investors and others in such a negative way that they may prevent Grant County, Kentucky, from achieving the economic recovery that its officials and residents have been seeking.

In other words, Ken Ham blames atheists for his trouble. Ham is refusing to take responsibility for his own failure, and refusing to take responsibility for his broken promises to the citizens and business community of Grant County, Kentucky.

Ham is desperate to counter the narrative that his Ark Encounter and Creation Museum are not delivering on the promises he made. He is particularly upset with a recent article from The Lexington Herald Leader that explores Ham’s failure to deliver on financial promises made to community members and local businesses.

Commenting on the agreements the Ark Encounter made with the county and city, and the broken promises made by Ham and his people after being given extremely generous tax breaks, Grant County Judge-Executive Steve Wood opined:

It’s a really bad deal for taxpayers. It was a shock for me because I didn’t really know all the details. Maybe I should have.

Bottom line: Ham is a sad monkey. His Ark Encounter and Creation Museum are not performing as well as he had hoped they would, and now he is refusing to take responsibility for his own failure, and instead blaming atheists and the secular media.


Con-man Ken Ham has to blame someone ... looks like he isn't the Pied Piper he thought he was.

What will Grant County do when the park closes?

God Responds is brutally honest.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019