Re: Is the Hills' flood possible?

Dave -- but if the boat's not in the river current, and instead is on a flat
lake, the wind doesn't need to be so strong, no?

Yes, Lake Thartar is the result of one of Sadaam's civil
engineering projects. But it's not in the main path of either the Tigris or
Euphrates, it's between them. There is an inlet canal via the Samara Dam
and an outlet canal that feeds into both the Tigris and Euphrates. I don't
see why a boat drifting on Lake Thartar would necessarily end up crashing
into the dam. In a deep lake, I wouldn't think there is a constant strong
current on every part of the lake towards the dam -- at least that's been my
(admittedly non-scientific) experience on boats sailing on big reservoirs.
I'd think this would particularly be the case if the dam provided no
outlet. I can even imagine, if there's an inlet from the river on one
northern side of the lake and no outlet, that a circular current could form
that would float an object to the south of the lake and then back to the
north (like putting a hose into the side of a pool).

Anyway, I'm not suggesting Lake Thartar is the site of Noah's voyage. It's
just an illustration of how a relatively large body of water was formed in a
natural depression near the Tigris and Euphrates and more towards the north
of Iraq. Even if something the size of Lake Thartar were an answer,
obviously we'd have to accept a much smaller local flood, or to overcome
other good objections such as the problem of the sediments, and/or
conceive a landing place not so far north as presumed.

On 6/8/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
>  David,
> You're not paying attention. I noted that the Ark would be beam-on to the
> wind. It doesn't matter where it is on the water or the current, it founders
> if the wind is strong. Additionally, I'm betting that the expanse noted is
> the result of one of Sadam's dams. If it was there when Noah sailed, he'd
> have smashed against it instead of sailing upriver.
> Dave
>
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 12:22:08 +0200 "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> Would the ark necessarily always have travelled in the river channel
> against the current? Maybe there are areas of depression outside the river
> channel in which the ark could have floated and been blown northwards. For
> example, Lake Tharthar, 120km northwest of Baghdad, is a man-made lake
> created by flooding a smaller salt lake. It's deep, and big. I stumbled
> across this description of it on a military helicopter pilot's blog:
> *<snip>*
> Obviously, this isn't to say the present site of Lake Tharthar was the
> place the ark went, but just to raise the possibility that there are areas
> of natural depression where the ark could've drifted outside the river
> channel for a time.
>
> On 6/8/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >  I consulted my son, licensed as a sea captain, and summarize his take.
> > He notes that 4 mph is low for a river current. He has taken a boat upstream
> > with the wind, but it took a diesel. More importantly, vessels do not stay
> > bow or stern to the wind. They broach. This produces list, which is
> > aggravated by whatever slides to the low side.
> >
> > Since the Ark, barring a miracle, would be beam-to the wind, I
> > considered a 5-foot draft, which leaves 40 feet to the wind, versus tipping
> > the Ark just enough so that all 45 feet would be exposed to the wind. I
> > figured this at about 11 1/3 degrees. With a cosine of 0.980 and the
> > 12.5% larger area, the pressure is about a tenth higher. Any greater
> > list and the bottom is exposed to the wind, increasing the torque.
> > Oopsidaisy!
> > Dave
> >
> > On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:08:21 -0400 philtill@aol.com writes:
> >
> >
> > Hi Glenn,
> >
> > <snip>
> > The only minor thing I can point out in your critique is that the ark
> > would have less torque (not more) as it rolled over because the surface
> > area projected normal to the direction of the wind would decrease (not
> > increase) according to the cosine of the roll angle. Therefore, when it
> > rolls it will feel less torque and can return to upright or find an
> > equilibrium angle. Furthermore, wind speed in the boundary layer of our
> > planet increases according to the logarithm of height above the surface, and
> > so higher velocity winds are at higher altitudes and v.v. Thus, as the
> > ark rolls over, its top will no longer be subjected to the highest velocity
> > winds. That, too, causes the torque to be reduced, and
> > quite significantly! Finally, a good boat design will have a restoration
> > torque from the water so that it will naturally rock back. Your critique of
> > the center of mass might be correct, but I don't have the details to look at
> > it here in Canada.
> >
> > God bless,
> > Phil Metzger
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jun 8 14:11:23 2006