Re: Is the Hills' flood possible?

Are you suggesting calm lake waters all the way upstream? Lake or river,
eddy or current, the Ark capsizes. It can't be pushed by a wind on the
stern. Kaput. Finito. Perdido. Fini. Done for.
Dave

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 20:10:40 +0200 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
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 23:15:28 2006