Noah's Ark: Sea Trials
Could a wooden vessel like Noah's Ark actually have been made seaworthy?
Filed under Ancient Mysteries, General Science
| Skeptoid #279 October 11, 2011 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 279, October 11, 2011
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4279
 |
| Noah's Ark by Edward Hicks (detail) (Public domain) |
Today we're going to have a bit of fun and shine the light of science on an ancient story. It is said that a gigantic wooden ship once carried a family and two of every kind of animal to safety, when the entire world was flooded. Noah's Ark sailed for five months, then rested aground, sheltering its multitudinous crew for more than a year.
The elephant in the room here is that it's virtually impossible to do an episode on this subject without having it sound like an attack on Christianity. I argue that it's not at all; the majority of Christians, when you combine the numerous denominations, don't insist that the Noah story is a literal true account. And, as has been pointed out many times, the Bible is hardly the only place where various versions of the Noah story are found. The most famous parallel, of course, is the Epic of Gilgamesh, wherein one of the many Babylonian gods charged the man Utnapishtim to build an ark, in a story that parallels Noah's in all the major details and most of the minor ones. It is perfectly plausible that all such stories stem from an actual event, the details of which are lost to history, but that might well account for the stories we have today of a boat and a flood. But regardless, in this episode I'm not going to address any issues of faith, but only of science. We want to look at the engineering plausibility of Noah's great ship.
Noah's Ark was a great rectangular box of gopherwood, or perhaps some combination of other woods colloquially referred to as gopherwood. Its dimensions are given as 137 meters long, 23 meters wide, and 14 meters high. This is very, very big; it would have been the longest wooden ship ever built. These dimensions rank it as one of history's greatest engineering achievements; but they also mark the start of our sea trials, our test of whether or not it's possible for this ship to have ever sailed, or indeed, been built at all.
Would it have been possible to find enough material to build Noah's Ark? When another early supership was built, the Great Michael (completed in Scotland in 1511) it was said to have consumed "all the woods of Fife". Fife was a county in Scotland famous for its shipbuilding. The Great Michael's timber had to be purchased and imported not only from other parts of Scotland, but also from France, the Baltic Sea, and from a large number of cargo ships from Norway. Yet at 73 meters, she was only about half the length of Noah's Ark. Clearly a ship twice the length of the Great Michael, and larger in all other dimensions, would have required many times as much timber. It's never been clearly stated exactly where Noah's Ark is said to have been built, but it would have been somewhere in Mesopotamia, probably along either the Tigris or Euphrates rivers. This area is now Iraq, which has never been known for its abundance of shipbuilding timber.
In 2003, a doctoral candidate at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Jose Solis, created a proposal to build the Ark for Noah based on sound naval architecture. He proposed a dead weight — the weight of the wooden structure alone minus cargo and ballast — as 3,676 tons. Fully loaded, it would have displaced 13,000 tons, as compared to the Great Michael's 1,000 that consumed "all the wood of Fife". Where would all that wood have come from? In his proposal, Solis simply skipped this detail, and assumed the wood was commercially available at a cost of $16,472,040 in 2003 dollars. Tens of thousands of massive timber-quality trees would have to have been imported into the middle of what's now Iraq. Did Noah have the resources to import from France, Norway, or anywhere else?
But if the Ark did get built, it would be necessary to overcome its extraordinary fragility. If you pick up a toy Hot Wheels car, you can squeeze it as hard as you want but you can't break it. However, if you were a giant and reached down to pick up a normal passenger car, your fingers would crush it before creating sufficient friction to lift it. If you even lifted it by one corner, you would warp its structure noticeably. When we extend this to even larger vessels, their fragility is magnified. Recall that when the Titanic sank, that massive steel structure tore completely in half simply because one end was heavier than the other. Just that difference in weight was sufficient to tear open many decks of reinforced steel that had been engineered to the day's toughest standards. Were Titanic a wooden box instead of rigid steel, you (as a giant) could destroy it just by swishing your finger in the water next to it.
Allow me to explain. What's known as the square-cube law is pretty familiar: increase an object's dimensions, and its surface area increases by the square of the multiplier, and its weight increases by the cube of the multiplier. But one extension of this law is less familiar. When we scale up an object — take a wooden structural beam as an example — the strength of the beam does not increase as fast as its weight. Applied mechanics and material sciences give us all the tools we need to compute this. In summary, the tensile strength of a beam is a function of its moment and its section modulus. No need to go into the complicated details here — you can look up beam theory on Wikipedia if you want to learn the equations. Scale up a simple wooden beam large enough, the weight will exceed its strength, and it will break from its own weight alone. Scaled up to the immense size of Noah's Ark, a stout wooden box would be unspeakably fragile.
If there was even the gentlest of currents, sufficient pressure would be put on the hull to open its seams. Currents are not a complete, perfectly even flow. They consist of eddies and slow-moving turbulence. This puts uneven pressure on the hull, and Noah's Ark would bend with those eddies like a snake. Even if the water itself was perfectly still, wind would expose the flat-sided Ark's tremendous windage, exerting a shearing force that might well crumple it.
Whether a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark could be made seaworthy is in grave doubt. At 137 meters (450 feet), Noah's Ark would be the largest wooden vessel ever confirmed to have been built. In recorded history, some dozen or so wooden ships have been constructed over 90 meters; few have been successful. Even so, these wooden ships had a great advantage over Noah's Ark: their curved hull shapes. Stress loads are distributed much more efficiently over three dimensionally curved surfaces than they are over flat surfaces. But even with this advantage, real-world large wooden ships have had severe problems. The sailing ships the 100 meter Wyoming (sunk in 1924) and 99 meter Santiago (sunk in 1918) were so large that they flexed in the water, opening up seams in the hull and leaking. The 102 meter British warships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service. Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking.
Even in the world of legend, only two other ships are said to have approached the size claimed for Noah's Ark. One was the Greek trireme Tessarakonteres at 127 meters, the length and existence of which is known only by the accounts of Plutarch and Athenaeus. Plutarch said of her:
But this ship was merely for show; and since she differed little from a stationary edifice on land, being meant for exhibition and not for use, she was moved only with difficulty and danger.
The other example is the largest of the Chinese treasure ships built by the admiral Zheng He in the 15th century, matching Noah's 137 meters, but only in the highest estimates. Many believe the biggest ships Zheng took with him on his seven voyages were no bigger than half that size, and moreover, that they remained behind in rivers and were not suitably seaworthy for ocean travels.
The long and the short of it — no pun intended — is that there's no precedent for a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark being seaworthy, and plenty of naval engineering experience telling us that it wouldn't be expected to work. Even if pumps had been installed and all hands worked round the clock pumping, the Ark certainly would have leaked catastrophically, filled with water, and capsized.
There's another elephant in the room, too, that is necessary to address. Many of the problems with the Noah story are often answered, by those who regard it as a literal true account, with a special pleading. A special pleading is when any question is answered with "It was done by a higher power that you and I are not qualified to understand or question." Obviously, every point that science might raise regarding the Noah story can be fully answered with a special pleading. Superman, Underdog, and The Jetsons can shown to be literal true accounts if we allow special pleadings to be admissable. If the special pleading of divine intervention did indeed come into play during the Great Flood, then it was the most flagrant Rube Goldberg solution I've ever heard of. If divine intervention was needed to give Noah knowledge of how to build the Ark, or to provide the wood for its construction; then why not just provide an already-completed ark? Why bring the animals on board to be fed for a year or more, when divine intervention could have provided them an island? For that matter, why have the entire flood at all, when divine intervention could have simply struck down the evil humans with a plague? Why construct this most elaborate of all disaster and survival scenarios, some part of which was dependent on divine intervention; when divine intervention could have easily made the entire ordeal unnecessary? Special pleadings dismiss the true sciences that have allowed us to build real ships and conquer the world. Looking at the reality of what's possible and how things are done is always more interesting than imagining what's possible when anything is possible.
© 2011 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Burns, T. "Doctoral student weighs the cost, structure of a famous ship." The Whistle. Georgia Institute of Technology, 19 Apr. 2004. Web. 8 Oct. 2011. <http://www.whistle.gatech.edu/archives/04/apr/19/ark.shtml>
Church, S. "Zheng He: An Investigation into the Plausibility of 450-foot Treasure Ships." Monumenta Serica. 1 Jan. 2005, Volume 53: 1-43.
Finlay, R. "How Not to (Re)Write World History: Gavin Menzies and the Chinese Discovery of America." Journal of World History. 1 Jun. 2004, 2004.
MacDougall, N. Scotland & War: AD 79 - 1918. Savage: Barnes & Noble, 1991. 36-57.
Plutarch. Demetrius Poliorcetes and Antonius. Selections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Chapter 43.
Whitmer, E. "Elementary Bernoulli-Euler Beam Theory." MIT Unified Engineering Course Notes. 1 Jan. 1991, Section 5: 115-164.
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Noah's Ark: Sea Trials." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
11 Oct 2011. Web.
23 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4279>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 102 comments
I remember the 1st time I went to the top of the empire state building. On the ground it was about 85 degrees. On the top it was in the 50's. So if the waters covered the Himalayas It would have been below zero on the surface of the water. If it kept raining for forty days would have the rain not turned to ice, covering the ship with ice and causing it to capsize? And what of the water itself? It would have frozen solid like in the arctic.
msteel, clearwater florida
November 22, 2012 10:06am
And where did you get your degree in Nautical engineering. I did not know they had seas on your home world. LIZARD
Klaatu, Nibiru
December 11, 2012 3:46am
Klaatu didnt come from Nibiru.
As a matter of fact, most of sitchins and co pile of allegations (never a single journal in an appropriate forum) came from their own mind.
To msteel, yer right in some way... how did the water appear before refreezing from outerspace is one thing only religious nutters trying to infuence good fellow citicens mke up.
A frozen water firmament was not what ancient writers had in mind at all.
Mud, missing point, NSW, Oz
December 24, 2012 3:07am
A small point: You state that Noah's ark is supposed to have carried two of every animal. I suggest you read the Bible. It's really kind of a cool book. It's got poetry, violence, even some porn (the Song of Solomon).
Anyway, in the story, God tells Noah to take two of every unclean animal and SEVEN of every clean animal.
What I want to know is, with all those thousands or tens of thousands of animals, and the only humans being Noah and his family, who shoveled all the poop out of the hold? I've worked on a dairy farm where the cows only came into the milk parlor twice a day for the time it took to milk them, and there was a LOT of poop to shovel out afterwards. With thousands and thousands of animals all indoors all the time there's no way that Noah and his wife and kids could have kept it from filling up to the roof. Yuck!
Daniel, Spokane, WA
January 01, 2013 11:38am
Pretty sure it landed on a russian mountain and theres documentation of it
Incognito, Location Unknown
January 01, 2013 12:43pm
As usual, alluding to the ark landing somewhere and not posting it is entirely unhelpful for those hordes of funding attractors hell bent on finding it.
Should it come to light that a skeptoid commenter actually has real information that is a secret.. email Brian, he is sure to send some real artfacts my way after he finds the ark based on this real information.
After all, I deserve a cut for asking you guys to be honest.
Brian, I would like the entire sacrificial altar fed-exed to Sin City Museum.
Yeah, the one the husbander for all generations sacrificed an animal upon landing.
Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
January 03, 2013 2:05am
Dismissing the account on the grounds that there is no precedence is not sound science.
No one is able to provide a coherent account of how the Great Pyramid would have been built. Some even suggest that extraterrestrials aided in its construction.
If that structure did not exist for us to see today, an account of it in some ancient book would be dismissed by us as mere fiction.
S Kumar, GA USA
April 04, 2013 10:38pm
The difference is, we could build the Pyramids today, even if we didn't know exactly how the ancient Egyptians did it.
It's physically impossible to construct a wooden ship as large as the Bible says it was, even with modern techniques.
Darren, Liverpool, UK
April 05, 2013 4:07am
If Noah and his family were the only humans who weren't killed by the flood, are we meant to believe that we are all descendants of him? And does that mean Noah was black, his kids were Chinese and his wife was middle eastern etc. It's the only explanation, ooooor it's all made up.
Brotron, St. John's NL
May 09, 2013 8:39am
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
A very minor nitpick, not isolated to just this article. Any analysis of Noah, or pre-flood biblical stuff, can't make assumptions about the geographical locations. You talk about the lack of timber in the Iraq region, but you could easily say that Noah started nearly anywhere else in the world and they merely made landfall in the Middle East afterwards. Using this idea, the Morman idea that Eden was in modern day Missouri and Noah might have been harvesting wood from the Mississippi Valley. Of course, the Bible/Torah kinda hint that the setting was Mediteranian, but once you flood the world, everything is in the air.
That said, this changes nothing of any degree in the article here.
Donovan Willett, Mobile, AL
October 22, 2012 9:09am