05-21-2006, 11:32 AM
Solution proposed by A. Wirsching in Die Obelisken auf dem Seeweg nach Rom sounds much more realistic. Transportaion of heavy blocks submerged and supported by floats (using their volumetric displacement) is well known already. Such a way of transportation of heavy blocks was also practically proved by Pavel Pavel, a Czech engineer, who was interested in ancient mechanics. (By the way his method of moving moiai on the Easter Island was heartily accepted by Thor Heyerdahl. They both tested walking moiai on the island with great success).
Obelisk ship:
- there is big difference between 55m grain carrier primarly propelled by sails and 104m so called obelisk ship
- such a big ship would suffer from hogging - serious problem even in smaller ships, hulls of big clippers like Great Republic or multi-mast schooners such as Wyoming were heavily strengthened with iron
- ship sail is too huge, heavy and cumbersome, considering difficulties with huge topsails of big clippers, it would be more probable to have more masts and sails on obelisk ship
- enormous single mast is rather out of question, to find single tree big enough seems to be impossible, the biggest wooden sailing ships (smaller then obelisk ship) had masts from several pieces
- transportation of obelisk between two hulls, taking advantage of it's volumetric displacement is ingenious and that’s quite different story from your first post
- steering such a floating object with small oars (insufficient steering oars areas) would be very difficult if not impossible (there is relation between submerged hull and steering rudder areas)
This idea seems a little cumbersome since such joined three hulls as described would be far from being streamlined, not talking about manoeuvreability, but towing of a raft with obelisk by smaller oar/sail propelled ships is quite possible.
Nemi ships:
Just to clear my view - I'm not trying to say that these ships never existed, I'm trying to say that there are many mysteries and strange things.
- enormous quantity of wood needed to built ships, transportation of wood to the hills (suppose there were no forests around)
- how Isis or Diana are connected with ships/water?
- why two ships?
- even for naumachia the size of ships is not understandable
etc.
Obelisk ship:
- there is big difference between 55m grain carrier primarly propelled by sails and 104m so called obelisk ship
- such a big ship would suffer from hogging - serious problem even in smaller ships, hulls of big clippers like Great Republic or multi-mast schooners such as Wyoming were heavily strengthened with iron
- ship sail is too huge, heavy and cumbersome, considering difficulties with huge topsails of big clippers, it would be more probable to have more masts and sails on obelisk ship
- enormous single mast is rather out of question, to find single tree big enough seems to be impossible, the biggest wooden sailing ships (smaller then obelisk ship) had masts from several pieces
- transportation of obelisk between two hulls, taking advantage of it's volumetric displacement is ingenious and that’s quite different story from your first post
- steering such a floating object with small oars (insufficient steering oars areas) would be very difficult if not impossible (there is relation between submerged hull and steering rudder areas)
Quote:The ship in front provided the streamlined water flow necessary at open sea, and also the propulsion.
This idea seems a little cumbersome since such joined three hulls as described would be far from being streamlined, not talking about manoeuvreability, but towing of a raft with obelisk by smaller oar/sail propelled ships is quite possible.
Nemi ships:
Just to clear my view - I'm not trying to say that these ships never existed, I'm trying to say that there are many mysteries and strange things.
- enormous quantity of wood needed to built ships, transportation of wood to the hills (suppose there were no forests around)
- how Isis or Diana are connected with ships/water?
- why two ships?
- even for naumachia the size of ships is not understandable
etc.
Martin
