SCIENCE: -- "observational science" vs "historical science" vs ... science.

As I said, the artist's rendering may not be perfect. Noah would, most likely, have used an A-frame design. I'm willing to concede that many figments of your imagination are impossible. My only point here is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the picture.

If you interpret the cross members (that we now know are image artifacts) as real then you've got a wooden lattice boom with square (instead of triangular) lattice that would collapse into a pile of matchsticks when hoisted into place, let alone trying to lift something with it: Once you know the cross members are actually image artifacts then you have an exceedingly odd looking boom that I originally noted in Message 590 and some of whose problems RAZD enumerated in Message 594, as we see in this higher resolution image: Notice how the region between the two beams of the boom appears to be whited out? This is especially apparent near the top of the boom where the whiting out has caused most of the pulley to be missing. If it is "whiting out" then it might have been done because whatever was originally drawn there looked worse than having nothing at all. I don't think it's a case of missing and eventually forgotten details that were intended to be added later, because if that were the case then the pulley would be fully represented instead of being mostly missing.--Percy

Neither do I. I think it's a case of the artist not knowing much about wooden cranes. We could probably find a lot of other things to nit-pick in the drawing - or we could give our heads a shake and remember: it's a drawing. A few details in a drawing are a complete non-issue.

Such as the top-heavy narrow base design ... on wheels ...And I think we can say with high confidence that there is no such crane construction of this sort seen in any documented historical ancient cranes ... so Hammy isn't doing either historical OR observational science ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : last p added

If this is not an A-frame, then that may represent cables to a cross beam (the dark square in the gap near the top side of the hull?) going around the tip and down the other side, similar to the stays on a mast.Without something to control sideways collapse of the boom, and any little swing of the load laterally would likely result in catastrophic failure ... regardless of construction of the stick ...Enjoy

I don't know, that crane looks so ridiculous and cartoon-ish. It looks to me as though Monty Python provided the inspiration for that crane design. HBD

I think you're seeing things that aint there. The beam is single as you first thought with a pulley cut into it midline at the top. The line that I think you are seeing as the outside edge of a second beam is actually the pulley rope of the winch.If you look at the upright sprouting from the top of the crane housing, it's a shortened version of the main beam - including the midline pulley with pulley rope.All silly enough in engineering terms but the real stupidity is that the balancing load - such that it is - is outside the wheel base of the crane, making it totally unstable. If you look at the tractor crane picture earlier, you can see that its base extends beyond the counter balance keeping it's centre of balance within it's base making it much harder to tip over backwards.

I see the pulley rope going right over the pulley, so I'm not mistaking the pulley rope for the outside edge of a second beam. Let me color code this:

[list][*]Red:        Pulley rope
[*]Green:      Top beam of boom
[*]Light blue: Bottom beam of boom[/list]

If the green beam and the light blue beam and the space in between is really just all one big thick beam, why is the region between the two beams the same color as the sky?--Percy

Percy, I actually think that the lightened area between what you call the top and bottom beam is actually just supposed to be light reflecting off a single cylindrical round beam. Note that this lightened area doesn't occur where the bulk of the ark would shade the boom. So I think this is just one mostly solid cylindrical beam.

If you look at the complete image you can see that if this were true then the wrong part of the boom is illuminated: To be consistent with the light illuminating the beams of the ark, the bottom of the boom that is facing to the right should be illuminated, not the side facing forward. Still, you're saying the same thing RAZD said a while back, and it seems the most likely explanation, it's just that the artist added highlighting to the boom incorrectly.Looking at the mast, its lighter portion must also be highlighting, and I wonder if that rectangular block about halfway down is the shadow of the weight hanging from the boom. If so it would mean that the sun is directly in line with the weight, the boom and the mast, more evidence that only the underside of the boom should be highlighted. Of course if they were all in line with the sun then that weight couldn't project a shadow onto the mast because the boom is in the way, so as several of us have said, who really knows.--Percy

I'm seeing a single beam shaped like a toothpick - similarilarly lit and shaded to the upright above the housing. The 'whited out' part of the pulley is because the pulley is hung inside a cut out in the beam in the same way it is in the post above the housing - which is pretty clearly seen.

You've gone back to my description from before I became convinced that the central light colored region of the boom is highlighting from the light of the sun.It occurred to me earlier this morning what an interesting example this is of people's tendency to fill in details when presented with an ambiguous image. I could understand an analogy to a long, skinny, round unsharpened pencil, but not to a toothpick, which is tapered and sharpened at each end. It does appear to slightly taper from base to tip.I couldn't figure out what "similarly lit" was similarly lit relative to, nor what "shaded to the upright above the housing" meant. I understand the "upright" is the mast atop the cab, but couldn't see what the boom being shaded to it was supposed to mean. Yes. I acknowledged that the boom is likely a single solid beam in Message 610. It occurs to me now that a single rope holding such a long, solid beam would be insufficient. If that's the figure of a man on the crane's platform then the base of the boom is about 5 feet in diameter, and the end is maybe 3 feet. Assuming a boom 50 feet in length (at least - it's taller than the ark, which is at least 40 feet) yields a boom of around 15 tons for a wood like oak. There need to be additional ropes, a lot of them.--Percy

Well, whichever way you see it, it's absurd...ps, I have a box of toothpicks that only have a point at one end. But enough, already ;-)

I'm afraid your point is lost in the poor illustration that you chose. A Trojan bunny is quite plausible from an engineering point of view.