Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8985 total)
40 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,742 Year: 9,490/23,288 Month: 505/1,544 Week: 219/561 Day: 7/38 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Ark - materials, construction and seaworthness
paisano
Member (Idle past 4975 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 91 of 231 (328316)
07-02-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by iano
07-02-2006 3:15 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
Floats, levers, pivots = back to the future? Simple materials + intelligence. Nothing more is required. And if nothing more is required than that then it is possible. Very possible

Don't think so. At very least I'd need to see more details of your proposed linkage to see if it's even statically determinate, much less will transfer force as you envision.

Which leaves aside entirely the question of the piston and cylinder element. What materials would it be made out of ? How would the thermal analysis be done such that the device didn't self destruct in use ? Would it be possible to machine such materials to the tolerances required to develop the pressure and flow rates required to clear the ark of bilge water and waste at the required rate ?
All with Bronze Age or early Iron Age technology and no knowledge of calculus, statics, thermodynamics, and strength of materials ? And how was all this advanced naval engineering technology totally lost to history until being redeveloped in the late 18th century ?

Your objections are based on your own presumptions.

My objections are based on mechanical engineering. If you want to assert that Noah's society had developed to late 18th century knowledge of science and technology - well, that leads us into the archeological and geological objections to the whole scenario.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by iano, posted 07-02-2006 3:15 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by iano, posted 07-02-2006 5:15 PM paisano has responded

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 4975 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 93 of 231 (328331)
07-02-2006 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by iano
07-02-2006 5:15 PM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
If you were cast on a desert island with some basic tools and could not manufacture a pump based on a reciprocating float then a mechanical engineer you are not.

I'd be even less of one if I tried to exploit random wave motion to produce a high and constant flow rate.

But you might try being less coy, and answering the objections by supplying relevant details, as asked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by iano, posted 07-02-2006 5:15 PM iano has not yet responded

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 4975 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 106 of 231 (328498)
07-03-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by iano
07-03-2006 5:50 AM


Re: Whatever floats your boat
The most amusing objection along these lines was the one which demanded that Noah first be in possession of concepts such as "statically determinate", "thermal analysis", "tolerances", "calculus", "ststistics", "thermodynamics etc"...before he could even begin to start

As if man achieved this before he started making machines..

Not so amusing when you realize that the size of the boat in question inevitably leads to engineering problems in its construction, stability, and watertight integrity that were comparable to those confronted by the shipbuilders of around 1800.

After all you are talking about something bigger than any of the ships of the line in Nelson's fleet, that would have to contend with heavy weather. How Noah would be able to avoid engineeering problems that faced Nelson is far from clear. The most reasonable assumption is that he would need technologies Nelson had access to.

Otherwise, that boat won't float. It isn't stable to begin with and capsizes at the first hint of heavy weather. Or its bilges fill rapidly and it sinks. Or it simply breaks up under the hull stress.

In addition, as I alluded to, thre are archeological and geological objections to the scenario. Probably biological as well (what about the parasites, what about species that required unique foods, etc.).

We are in a science forum. If you are convinced the flood story should be interpreted literally you need to provide scientific or engineering evidence, and answer objections that are raised.

Alluding to "possible" technologies won't do at the patent office, and it won't do here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 5:50 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 11:17 AM paisano has not yet responded
 Message 114 by iano, posted 07-03-2006 12:30 PM paisano has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020