Affordable seaworthy cruiser

Richard,

Boat will be built and your wish to say, "see, I told him" isnt going to happen; your hope for failure is misplaced.

 

I said even if it were carved from a solid or laminated, forget point loads for the moment. Lets concentrate on fundamental global strength. We can get onto point loads later. Do you understand global loads and how they relate to beam theory ?

By the time a ship gets to 450 feet and many thousands of tons you need a substantial amount of metal to carry the stresses that would otherwise break it up. High tensile steel Cables are good ..........along with a substantial amount of steelwork to transfer the global stress into them.

It's a bit like the concept of "breaking length", wood as a structural material over a certain limit is structurally self defeating. You add so much weight to meet the structural requirement that it can't support itself let alone the load.

 

I really don't know what I do if this was my forum regarding this thread.

I suppose it's better to allow this thread stand as a record of many knowledgeable professionals warning of the impending perils and threat-to-life, should any of this actually ever reach the point of an attempted launch of any kind. It seems that actual design input from others is being rejected. Shame.



To those members that are writing things other than direct nautical/technical comments and questions, it's my experience that challenging faith-based efforts with questions, reason, logic and rational argument only make "believers" dig in, become even more resolute and stubborn, out of defiance.
It makes things worse. So does ridicule.

Notice as an example, that Richard Woods' inoffensive post is distorted into a self-serving "hope for failure".

No one believes that Richard nor any other experienced designer/builder would intentionally wish harm on anyone with a dream.

 

Other people read these threads and some of them are as like minded as GWTA.

It might save some lives if people realise that Holy books, written by men a few thousand years less enlightened than we are, are not absolute guides to anything, and particularly not naval architecture.

If GW can accept that the Ark myth is an allegorical tale borrowed from the earlier Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" then we might help someone start with a proper SOR and design spiral.

The tower of babel was going to reach heaven itself which is why God knocks it down, a nice allegory, but we know heaven isn't above the clouds now.
We also know you cannot make a 450 foot ship out of nothing but wood. That's an easy enough challenge given todays FEA packages. You don't even need to build it to prove it.

Belief can't change the fundamental tenants of marine engineering/naval architecture. That must be based on fact for sensible results. Whimsy and myth are no basis for a boat design that's going to head to sea.

 

Mike,

Look up largest woodenships,
1. Most had superstructures or sails to stress the boat that Noah wouldnt have needed.
2. All of them had similiar dimensions to ark. They appoached the ark in size but remember Noah lived 900 years, no comparison to about 50 years of work and knowledge gained for people of today.
3. There is no reason to believe Noah built a square box, he knew to use curves for strength. Squares are what your beam theory is based on.
4. Prior to Noah, Genesis mentions Tubal-Cain as a smith and artificer of bronze and iron. Noah knew to use iron were it was necessary.
5. As the fossil records indicate, trees were much bigger and heathier than today. They had 2,000 years to mature from Adams time to Noahs in prime forest habitat.
6. You mistakenly believe people of today are the epitome of mans knowledge and if it cant be figured out today it never happened. Thats just plain foolish pride.

 

1: not relevant to the hull girder in hogging and sagging from wave loads.
2: Composite steel and wood, even a battleship.
3: No beam theory is for you to understand the hull girder principle and what we call global loads.
4: Substantial amounts of bronze would be required. But it might be feasible, to keep the hull together. But departing a bit from the tale though !

What about heaven being just above the clouds and the other structure I mentioned ? Just curious how you rationalize that as well.

 

MikeJohns - no point wasting bandwidth in trying to convince people of following:

It is wasted effort.

I think its fine to point out that the 1:6 in succesful boats is cherry picking and in no way a rule. But far more important to concentrate on actual design and process errors. I don't see any need in closing the thread.

Tomas said it well - its not about ill will or pessimism or anything like. If there is a higher power it gave us brain to use and we humans have communally used brains rather well. This has resulted in a lot of accumulated knowledge and experience that helps us avoid repeating mistakes already done.

What irritates/worries me about GWTA is not so much the stubborness about faith related issues or sticking to some arbitrary number (1:6) but its the following:

1. Constantly writing things as facts when he is writing about a field he is clearly not a professional in. He makes constantly confident statements that sound like he had something to back them up but in reality they are hopes and wishes pretending to be facts. This is very dangerous as for someone else he might come of as a professional.

examples:

I don't have the energy to wade through the thread but GWTA will say constantly absolute statements in the fashion of : "Structure A is far superios in heavy seas. Its also much easier to maintain." When in fact he has NEVER had any experience of said subject. Forwarding text read earlier as absolute truths is questionable at best.

When asked about the experience and credentials - which seems to be very limited all we have gotten is cocky

Which sadly is actually accurate as his highest credit for boat design.

2. He categorically ignores feedback and criticism provided by experienced skilled people who know much better than him. I am no NA pro so I read this for fun but on early pages there were serious people providing serious comments - most have stopped following by now. GWTA labels all these as naysayers picks only irrelevant banter to respond to and justifies every bad decision with faith based jargon.

It is important to raise awareness to random observers in a case like this where a person disregards reputable (and by reputable I mean people who have designed number of boats and or been in passage making conditions) and acts as if he had authority on a subject he actually doesn't know much of.

this boat:


and this weather:


Do not mix.
You don't have to be an engineer to see that the structure of longitudinal planking with flat surfaces and tight corners is not strong. And of course will pound like crazy until you have pile of floating king sized matches.

 

It's about boats- interesting as it stands and would be even if each post was just tossing about construction particulars of the ark.

If the forum tone is maintained in that all are civil to each other, I don't think there is any problem.

I am honestly interested in the structural limit question I posted to Mike.
I did not pose it as a combative -'the ark couldn't have existed' question, just more of curiosity about engineering & boats..

 

Mike,

You are getting away from boats but Ill attempt to answer your question.

After the flood, men had an immediate awareness of God, as Noah and the Eight lived hundreds of years after the deluge. The tower of babel is mans first attempt at forming a central government to craftily have control over others, or as can be seen today through communistic, socialistic, facist, oligarchial means these created entities called governments are trying set themselves up as gods.

He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Psalms 2:4

 

There are three heavens,
First is the atmosphere.
Second is the bodies in space-moon,sun,stars.
Third - God throne - Scripture says its somewhere North.

Which one is the one according to the Genesis account of Babel, probably the third. This just goes to prove the absurdity of the ungodly and in no way impunes the Lord or the Scriptures. I think that tower they half way built is like the ones that followed after the peoples were seperated through language: Pyramids/zigurets in Egypt, the Americas, China, and basically all over the earth.

These were the first false religions set up and thier priests colluding with military strongmen to impose central authority. Thats basically what I think it was sort of like the clenched communist fist raised towards heaven, utterly without any power of its own other than simple men banding together, thinking the whole will able to over rule God rather than coming to the realization, or hoping to avoid- the day they will be alone, naked, on thier knees, aware of thier sins and awaiting destruction.

 

Jesus christ you go on. Your doctor might need to alter your drug prescription.

 

goodwilltoall - the moderator posted this earlier:

It applies to all views I believe. So lets concentrate on the boating aspect and keep the religious references somewhat relevant to that. Mike you too.

 

Kerosene,

There have been just a few that have added constructive criticism to the merits of the boat designed, most are on the "how dare he use Scripture for boat design" bandwagon and then begin mocking the boat as well as Scripture.

Used some corrosive words towards Richard Woods, he posted a few weeks ago for the first time and more or less just said "please dont take that boat out on water" and then started mocking like everybody else. Never mentioning why it would not work.

Several years ago when one of the famous racing catamarans broke in half he said after the fact " I told them not to put that cross beam right there in the middle, they didnt listen to me and as a result the boat broke in half."

Well if you are making judgements and conclusions clearly explain yourselves before hand - ( i.e. what beams are misplaced?) You see the extensive drawings, accompaining changes ,and build pictures. Comment on those things if you guys know boat design.

Re: flat bottom. It is expected that the forward section will take the brunt of the slapping/pounding, hence the formed Vee form at that area.

 

You missed this...

That means the Earth is 6,000 years old.

That's why this stuff is interesting. It's Planet Of The Apes today, Flat Earth 101. That Noah's Ark is a second hand story adapted from the Myth of Deucalion, which swiped it from the clay tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh and still holds sway, can still be used to control and fleece money from the flock is such an amazing thing.

What good would it do for the moderator to stop the thread? I want to see the boat finished and see what it can do. I don't believe Goodwill is going to do anything crazy with it, I think he is smart enough to realize what it's limitations will be. Whether it will work as a boat should be seen, if it does work, everyone can learn from that, if it doesn't everyone can learn from that also.

 

Re: flatbottom. If you remember from previous posts (will state matter of factly, and if you disagree - explain), flat bottom boats need long length to minimize areas of large concentrated waterplanes, lenghth spreads that out.

Secondly, for long boats with Vee and rounded sections they are notorious for rolling, so hope to reduce it with the flat bottom, there will still be some slapping but hope description above helps to avoid serious pounding. Again have to mention a whole line of Bolger boats that have dealt successfully with this issue.

Thirdly, the full keel will further reduce rolling and it is thought any drops into troughs (will try to avoid this type of riding) full impact upon an exposed botttom will not happen but that the keel will act to splay out the water and possibly even trap air or water to soften the blow.

Fourth, The bottom is to be heavily reinforced from the inside of frames with wood along with secured concrete/steel trim ballast. These efforts should keep the inside fairly quiet and seakindly.

If these are wrong conclusions explain why.