Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Egyptian boat entombed near Great Pyramid to be excavated,

Kendall K Down · Guest

In message <r9udnY-OqfdRVhrVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@netspace.net.au>
"Peter Jason" <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

[quote]Well, when they have it assembled why not
send it for a voyage on the Atlantic?
[/quote]
Too precious. Nothing to stop a replica, of course.

[quote]Captained by the indefatigable Dr Hawass, of
course.
[/quote]
Put a TV camera on the boat and he>s your man.

[quote]Surely there are archaeologists here who
would man the oars, for science.
[/quote]
Not if Zahi was in charge!

Ken Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia>s premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Jack Linthicum · Guest

On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
[quote]Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:03:30 -0500, Tom McDonald
tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

That>s not really the basis of my opinion. In fact its not just my
opinion. It>s the opinion of those who have studied the matter.

The only wood available to the Egyptians was that of the Acacia tree.
These produced planks about 3' long. In Ships and Seafaring in ancient
times' Lionel Casson quoted Herodotus as writing:

"The boats they use for carrying cargo are made from the acacia tree
From this acacia tree they cut planks three feet long.,
Wouldn>t Egyptians have had access to cedar from Lebanon? IIRC,
this would have been better for boat building (although I think
acacia is pretty tough wood).

I understand that for the period we are talking of Acacia was the wood
principally used for boat building. You are right, cedar could be used
and was used but somewhere I have seen a reference to the Pharoah
complaining about the great price.

The Cheops' ships were made of cedar which was employed in much the
same way as that described by Casson. See
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/ships.html. You can see that this is not a
sea-going ship. You can also see that even the cedar planking is in
short lengths. Presumably, in those times, it was not practical to
transport ship length logs from Lebanon to where ever the ships were
built.

From some googling, it seems that the shortest oars in the image
are ca. 12.5 meters. Although I haven>t found a good image of the
side of the boat, from the ones I can see (and the perspective
might be off), at least some of the planks are far longer than
three feet. In fact, I can>t see the far ends of the second
column of planks (from the overlap with the first set of planks).

This suggests to me that, even if the cedar was used in generally
the same way as the acacia, it appears to have been used in much
longer lengths.

I guess I don>t see the relevance of your remark about
'ship-length logs from Lebanon'. I would assume that it would
have been more economical to ship planks than logs, as well as
safer in any sort of sea.

snip
[/quote]
Some of the planks were in the 40 foot range. From Steffy (Cheops)
"The bottom was assembled first. This consisted of eight cedar planks,
averaging 13 m in length and 13 cm in thickness, arranged so that
there were two in the forward section and three each in the middle and
after sections of the hull."

There were two eras, at least, in Egyptian shipbuilding, when they
could get the long cedar planks and when they couldn>t.

Jack Linthicum · Guest

On Jul 23, 8:23 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
[quote]"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote
in messagenews:kchc845hv8ehm408cogpn1npfuorl76gbq@4ax.com...

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:27:06 -0700 (PDT),
David
pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.physorg.com/news135741659.html

My question for the distinguished
archaeologists
on sci.arch like Peter Alaca, Tom McDonald,
and Doug Weller or less ironically, the
very
intelligent and even brilliant Eric Stevens
and Daryl Krupa etc. -

was the vessel capable of being ocean-going
and were such used there, not on the Nile?

if so, how early were such used on the
ocean?

Please note that I do not deny the specific
interpretation of Darnell and Hawass.

My understanding of the construction of the
egyptian boats of the
period was that they did not have the
structural strength required to
cope with the conditions at sea.

Eric Stevens

Well, when they have it assembled why not
send it for a voyage on the Atlantic?

Captained by the indefatigable Dr Hawass, of
course.

Surely there are archaeologists here who
would man the oars, for science.
[/quote]
The problem the Egyptians "solved" was hogging, ie when the center of
the boat is supported on a wave and the two ends of the boat are not
supported by water. The waves in the Mediterranean are quite a bit
smaller than what a ship would encounter on the Atlantic. J.Caesar of
British invasion fame remarked on the seeming over design of the
Celtic boats. Probably changed his mind after a Channel trip.

Jack Linthicum · Guest

On Jul 24, 9:40 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
[quote]Jack Linthicum wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:03:30 -0500, Tom McDonald
tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
snip

That>s not really the basis of my opinion. In fact its not just my
opinion. It>s the opinion of those who have studied the matter.
The only wood available to the Egyptians was that of the Acacia tree.
These produced planks about 3' long. In Ships and Seafaring in ancient
times' Lionel Casson quoted Herodotus as writing:
"The boats they use for carrying cargo are made from the acacia tree
From this acacia tree they cut planks three feet long.,
Wouldn>t Egyptians have had access to cedar from Lebanon? IIRC,
this would have been better for boat building (although I think
acacia is pretty tough wood).
I understand that for the period we are talking of Acacia was the wood
principally used for boat building. You are right, cedar could be used
and was used but somewhere I have seen a reference to the Pharoah
complaining about the great price.
The Cheops' ships were made of cedar which was employed in much the
same way as that described by Casson. See
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/ships.html. You can see that this is not a
sea-going ship. You can also see that even the cedar planking is in
short lengths. Presumably, in those times, it was not practical to
transport ship length logs from Lebanon to where ever the ships were
built.
From some googling, it seems that the shortest oars in the image
are ca. 12.5 meters. Although I haven>t found a good image of the
side of the boat, from the ones I can see (and the perspective
might be off), at least some of the planks are far longer than
three feet. In fact, I can>t see the far ends of the second
column of planks (from the overlap with the first set of planks).

This suggests to me that, even if the cedar was used in generally
the same way as the acacia, it appears to have been used in much
longer lengths.

I guess I don>t see the relevance of your remark about
'ship-length logs from Lebanon'. I would assume that it would
have been more economical to ship planks than logs, as well as
safer in any sort of sea.

snip

Some of the planks were in the 40 foot range. From Steffy (Cheops)
"The bottom was assembled first. This consisted of eight cedar planks,
averaging 13 m in length and 13 cm in thickness, arranged so that
there were two in the forward section and three each in the middle and
after sections of the hull."

Thanks, Jack. From the images of the Cheops boat, it certainly
looked to me as though the planks were quite long. At least as
compared to the supposed meter-ish long acacia planks mentioned
by Herodotus.

There were two eras, at least, in Egyptian shipbuilding, when they
could get the long cedar planks and when they couldn>t.
[/quote]
The planks aren>t straight as we would imagine but formed to the idea
of the hull as it exists in the mind of the build. In this case his
name is Ti.

Note Figure 6, an example of the almost cabinetry nature of Egyptian
shipbuilding. There are mortise and tenon joints as well as the
lashings.

http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/people/faculty/ward/Ward%202006.pdf

Eric Stevens · Guest

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:35:30 +0100, Kendall K Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

[quote]In message <8akf841gnqd3d3951ibcnea9sa5403sm69@4ax.com
Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

But what do you carry the planks in? The Pharoah>s boats were larger
than the boats which were going to deliver the planks. Alternatively,
if the planks came by land the Pharoahs boats were longer than
anything which could be carried by a camel or donkey. The cedar planks
were obviously longer than 3' but they still weren>t very long.

The story of Wen-Amun seems to indicate trade in wood by sea.

Agreed.[/quote]

But it is not possible to carry planks as long as even the ship which
is going to carry them. The planks could not have been long.

Eric Stevens

Tom McDonald · Guest

Jack Linthicum wrote:
[quote]On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:03:30 -0500, Tom McDonald
tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
snip

That>s not really the basis of my opinion. In fact its not just my
opinion. It>s the opinion of those who have studied the matter.
The only wood available to the Egyptians was that of the Acacia tree.
These produced planks about 3' long. In Ships and Seafaring in ancient
times' Lionel Casson quoted Herodotus as writing:
"The boats they use for carrying cargo are made from the acacia tree
From this acacia tree they cut planks three feet long.,
Wouldn>t Egyptians have had access to cedar from Lebanon? IIRC,
this would have been better for boat building (although I think
acacia is pretty tough wood).
I understand that for the period we are talking of Acacia was the wood
principally used for boat building. You are right, cedar could be used
and was used but somewhere I have seen a reference to the Pharoah
complaining about the great price.
The Cheops' ships were made of cedar which was employed in much the
same way as that described by Casson. See
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/ships.html. You can see that this is not a
sea-going ship. You can also see that even the cedar planking is in
short lengths. Presumably, in those times, it was not practical to
transport ship length logs from Lebanon to where ever the ships were
built.
From some googling, it seems that the shortest oars in the image
are ca. 12.5 meters. Although I haven>t found a good image of the
side of the boat, from the ones I can see (and the perspective
might be off), at least some of the planks are far longer than
three feet. In fact, I can>t see the far ends of the second
column of planks (from the overlap with the first set of planks).

This suggests to me that, even if the cedar was used in generally
the same way as the acacia, it appears to have been used in much
longer lengths.

I guess I don>t see the relevance of your remark about
'ship-length logs from Lebanon'. I would assume that it would
have been more economical to ship planks than logs, as well as
safer in any sort of sea.

snip

Some of the planks were in the 40 foot range. From Steffy (Cheops)
"The bottom was assembled first. This consisted of eight cedar planks,
averaging 13 m in length and 13 cm in thickness, arranged so that
there were two in the forward section and three each in the middle and
after sections of the hull."
[/quote]
Thanks, Jack. From the images of the Cheops boat, it certainly
looked to me as though the planks were quite long. At least as
compared to the supposed meter-ish long acacia planks mentioned
by Herodotus.

[quote]
There were two eras, at least, in Egyptian shipbuilding, when they
could get the long cedar planks and when they couldn>t.[/quote]

Jack Linthicum · Guest

On Jul 24, 4:51 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum

jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:03:30 -0500, Tom McDonald
tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

That>s not really the basis of my opinion. In fact its not just my
opinion. It>s the opinion of those who have studied the matter.

The only wood available to the Egyptians was that of the Acacia tree.
These produced planks about 3' long. In Ships and Seafaring in ancient
times' Lionel Casson quoted Herodotus as writing:

"The boats they use for carrying cargo are made from the acacia tree
From this acacia tree they cut planks three feet long.,
Wouldn>t Egyptians have had access to cedar from Lebanon? IIRC,
this would have been better for boat building (although I think
acacia is pretty tough wood).

I understand that for the period we are talking of Acacia was the wood
principally used for boat building. You are right, cedar could be used
and was used but somewhere I have seen a reference to the Pharoah
complaining about the great price.

The Cheops' ships were made of cedar which was employed in much the
same way as that described by Casson. See
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/ships.html. You can see that this is not a
sea-going ship. You can also see that even the cedar planking is in
short lengths. Presumably, in those times, it was not practical to
transport ship length logs from Lebanon to where ever the ships were
built.

From some googling, it seems that the shortest oars in the image
are ca. 12.5 meters. Although I haven>t found a good image of the
side of the boat, from the ones I can see (and the perspective
might be off), at least some of the planks are far longer than
three feet. In fact, I can>t see the far ends of the second
column of planks (from the overlap with the first set of planks).

This suggests to me that, even if the cedar was used in generally
the same way as the acacia, it appears to have been used in much
longer lengths.

I guess I don>t see the relevance of your remark about
'ship-length logs from Lebanon'. I would assume that it would
have been more economical to ship planks than logs, as well as
safer in any sort of sea.

snip

Some of the planks were in the 40 foot range. From Steffy (Cheops)
"The bottom was assembled first. This consisted of eight cedar planks,
averaging 13 m in length and 13 cm in thickness, arranged so that
there were two in the forward section and three each in the middle and
after sections of the hull."

There were two eras, at least, in Egyptian shipbuilding, when they
could get the long cedar planks and when they couldn>t.

Dammit!

I>ve been talking out of the back of my neck! Please ignore what I
have already said on the subject.

I own a copy of Steffey but its a long time since I read it. When this
thread started I looked at both the Contents and the Index and could
find nothing about the Cheops ship. Now I>ve gone back and done a page
by page search, and there it is.

All I can now say is that for plank length you should have quoted the
reference to the "cedar planks on each side varying in length from
from 7 to 23 m and in thickness from 12 to 15 cm". Even if they were
carried on the deck, the transport of 23 m planks says something about
the size of ships plying the Mediterranean at that time.

Nevertheless there seems to have been a vast difference between the
ships described by Herodotus and the royal barge. But that>s not
really surprising.

Eric Stevens
[/quote]
I was on page 25, "1. The bottom was assembled first. This consisted
of eight cedar planks....."

You are quoting from "2. The sides were installed next...."

I would suggest that something like 1900 years might change things,
but there are references to the acacia wood even at the time of the
Cheops boat or a little after.

Jack Linthicum · Guest

On Jul 24, 5:02 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum

jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:23 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote
in messagenews:kchc845hv8ehm408cogpn1npfuorl76gbq@4ax.com...

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:27:06 -0700 (PDT),
David
pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.physorg.com/news135741659.html

My question for the distinguished
archaeologists
on sci.arch like Peter Alaca, Tom McDonald,
and Doug Weller or less ironically, the
very
intelligent and even brilliant Eric Stevens
and Daryl Krupa etc. -

was the vessel capable of being ocean-going
and were such used there, not on the Nile?

if so, how early were such used on the
ocean?

Please note that I do not deny the specific
interpretation of Darnell and Hawass.

My understanding of the construction of the
egyptian boats of the
period was that they did not have the
structural strength required to
cope with the conditions at sea.

Eric Stevens

Well, when they have it assembled why not
send it for a voyage on the Atlantic?

Captained by the indefatigable Dr Hawass, of
course.

Surely there are archaeologists here who
would man the oars, for science.

The problem the Egyptians "solved" was hogging, ie when the center of
the boat is supported on a wave and the two ends of the boat are not
supported by water. The waves in the Mediterranean are quite a bit
smaller than what a ship would encounter on the Atlantic. J.Caesar of
British invasion fame remarked on the seeming over design of the
Celtic boats. Probably changed his mind after a Channel trip.

Hogging will occur even in calm water. The bouyancy tends to be
concentrated around the mid-length of the hull while the weight of the
hull and cargo is more evenly distributed. If wave action was the
culprit then reverse bracing would also be required to deal with the
situation when the ends were supported on waves and the mid point was
in a trough.

Eric Stevens
[/quote]
I find that incorrect. Hogging is the support of the middle of the
ship and the lack of support for the ends. Sagging is the opposite. It
takes a wave to accomplish hogging, it is not possible in calm water
unless the cargo is stowed in such a way as to emulate the wave action
while still. And then it is more than a little bit impossible.

Sagging is less like likely to be a problem, and was solved by
shortening the length of the ship in proportion to the width. Sagging
harnesses left when this was adopted.

Side question: how do you concentrate buoyancy?

Eric Stevens · Guest

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:28:38 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 23, 7:56 pm, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:03:30 -0500, Tom McDonald
tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

That>s not really the basis of my opinion. In fact its not just my
opinion. It>s the opinion of those who have studied the matter.

The only wood available to the Egyptians was that of the Acacia tree.
These produced planks about 3' long. In Ships and Seafaring in ancient
times' Lionel Casson quoted Herodotus as writing:

"The boats they use for carrying cargo are made from the acacia tree
From this acacia tree they cut planks three feet long.,
Wouldn>t Egyptians have had access to cedar from Lebanon? IIRC,
this would have been better for boat building (although I think
acacia is pretty tough wood).

I understand that for the period we are talking of Acacia was the wood
principally used for boat building. You are right, cedar could be used
and was used but somewhere I have seen a reference to the Pharoah
complaining about the great price.

The Cheops' ships were made of cedar which was employed in much the
same way as that described by Casson. See
http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/ships.html. You can see that this is not a
sea-going ship. You can also see that even the cedar planking is in
short lengths. Presumably, in those times, it was not practical to
transport ship length logs from Lebanon to where ever the ships were
built.

From some googling, it seems that the shortest oars in the image
are ca. 12.5 meters. Although I haven>t found a good image of the
side of the boat, from the ones I can see (and the perspective
might be off), at least some of the planks are far longer than
three feet. In fact, I can>t see the far ends of the second
column of planks (from the overlap with the first set of planks).

This suggests to me that, even if the cedar was used in generally
the same way as the acacia, it appears to have been used in much
longer lengths.

I guess I don>t see the relevance of your remark about
'ship-length logs from Lebanon'. I would assume that it would
have been more economical to ship planks than logs, as well as
safer in any sort of sea.

snip

Some of the planks were in the 40 foot range. From Steffy (Cheops)
"The bottom was assembled first. This consisted of eight cedar planks,
averaging 13 m in length and 13 cm in thickness, arranged so that
there were two in the forward section and three each in the middle and
after sections of the hull."

There were two eras, at least, in Egyptian shipbuilding, when they
could get the long cedar planks and when they couldn>t.
[/quote]
Dammit!

I>ve been talking out of the back of my neck! Please ignore what I
have already said on the subject.

I own a copy of Steffey but its a long time since I read it. When this
thread started I looked at both the Contents and the Index and could
find nothing about the Cheops ship. Now I>ve gone back and done a page
by page search, and there it is.

All I can now say is that for plank length you should have quoted the
reference to the "cedar planks on each side varying in length from
from 7 to 23 m and in thickness from 12 to 15 cm". Even if they were
carried on the deck, the transport of 23 m planks says something about
the size of ships plying the Mediterranean at that time.

Nevertheless there seems to have been a vast difference between the
ships described by Herodotus and the royal barge. But that>s not
really surprising.

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens · Guest

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 23, 8:23 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote
in messagenews:kchc845hv8ehm408cogpn1npfuorl76gbq@4ax.com...

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:27:06 -0700 (PDT),
David
pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.physorg.com/news135741659.html

My question for the distinguished
archaeologists
on sci.arch like Peter Alaca, Tom McDonald,
and Doug Weller or less ironically, the
very
intelligent and even brilliant Eric Stevens
and Daryl Krupa etc. -

was the vessel capable of being ocean-going
and were such used there, not on the Nile?

if so, how early were such used on the
ocean?

Please note that I do not deny the specific
interpretation of Darnell and Hawass.

My understanding of the construction of the
egyptian boats of the
period was that they did not have the
structural strength required to
cope with the conditions at sea.

Eric Stevens

Well, when they have it assembled why not
send it for a voyage on the Atlantic?

Captained by the indefatigable Dr Hawass, of
course.

Surely there are archaeologists here who
would man the oars, for science.

The problem the Egyptians "solved" was hogging, ie when the center of
the boat is supported on a wave and the two ends of the boat are not
supported by water. The waves in the Mediterranean are quite a bit
smaller than what a ship would encounter on the Atlantic. J.Caesar of
British invasion fame remarked on the seeming over design of the
Celtic boats. Probably changed his mind after a Channel trip.
[/quote]
Hogging will occur even in calm water. The bouyancy tends to be
concentrated around the mid-length of the hull while the weight of the
hull and cargo is more evenly distributed. If wave action was the
culprit then reverse bracing would also be required to deal with the
situation when the ends were supported on waves and the mid point was
in a trough.

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens · Guest

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:05:47 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 24, 5:02 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:32:42 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum

jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Jul 23, 8:23 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote:
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote
in messagenews:kchc845hv8ehm408cogpn1npfuorl76gbq@4ax.com...

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:27:06 -0700 (PDT),
David
pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:

http://www.physorg.com/news135741659.html

My question for the distinguished
archaeologists
on sci.arch like Peter Alaca, Tom McDonald,
and Doug Weller or less ironically, the
very
intelligent and even brilliant Eric Stevens
and Daryl Krupa etc. -

was the vessel capable of being ocean-going
and were such used there, not on the Nile?

if so, how early were such used on the
ocean?

Please note that I do not deny the specific
interpretation of Darnell and Hawass.

My understanding of the construction of the
egyptian boats of the
period was that they did not have the
structural strength required to
cope with the conditions at sea.

Eric Stevens

Well, when they have it assembled why not
send it for a voyage on the Atlantic?

Captained by the indefatigable Dr Hawass, of
course.

Surely there are archaeologists here who
would man the oars, for science.

The problem the Egyptians "solved" was hogging, ie when the center of
the boat is supported on a wave and the two ends of the boat are not
supported by water. The waves in the Mediterranean are quite a bit
smaller than what a ship would encounter on the Atlantic. J.Caesar of
British invasion fame remarked on the seeming over design of the
Celtic boats. Probably changed his mind after a Channel trip.

Hogging will occur even in calm water. The bouyancy tends to be
concentrated around the mid-length of the hull while the weight of the
hull and cargo is more evenly distributed. If wave action was the
culprit then reverse bracing would also be required to deal with the
situation when the ends were supported on waves and the mid point was
in a trough.

Eric Stevens

I find that incorrect. Hogging is the support of the middle of the
ship and the lack of support for the ends. Sagging is the opposite. It
takes a wave to accomplish hogging, it is not possible in calm water
unless the cargo is stowed in such a way as to emulate the wave action
while still. And then it is more than a little bit impossible.

Sagging is less like likely to be a problem, and was solved by
shortening the length of the ship in proportion to the width. Sagging
harnesses left when this was adopted.

Side question: how do you concentrate buoyancy?
[/quote]
.... which question is directed at the heart of the matter.

A ship displaces very little water at the bow which is narrow.
Similarly it displaces very little water at the stern which is narrow.
The ship displaces the maximum amount at the point of maximum beam
which is usually at about the half-length or a little further forward
(in the old days). Further, both the bow and the stern normally draw
less water so that causes them to displace even less. For these
reasons the displacement of the ship tends to be concentrated around
the widest and deepest part.

The weight of the ship and its cargo does not follow the same pattern.
In proportion to the displacement, there is more weight at the ends
and less at the middle. Imagine the ship as a beam supported
principally at the fattest part of the longitudinal displacement
curve. That is why the ends to droop down and the middle rise up.

Eric Stevens


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Archaeology Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3