Next Top Menu Nasca Monkey Report Namon's Gallery
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 1996 01:41:45 -0700
From: Jiri Mruzek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
Rolling the Wheeled
Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 1996 17:03:57 -0700, Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > Pushing a small car (on wheels with steel bearings, and weighing
> > a ton at most) is as hard, as rolling a 10-ton wheel!
> >This claim is an obvious lie. One thing about such 10-ton
> >wheels - they are not perfectly round, and therefore aren't
> >well balanced! This will create problems, when the heaviest half
> >will be at the low point of rotation.
> >My expert opinion: You got the idea from the "Flintstones" show!
> >At any rate, this show abounds in similar cartoon-suitable "ideas".
> First, the wheels aren't 10 tons, what they're carrying was.
There, you found a technicality. Congrats! I thought that we had
to think about turning the whole thing..
> Second, cars have rubber wheels which have a lot more rolling friction
> hard wheels.
Ten times as much weight remains the decisive consideration.
Modern tires roll easily, and their rubber is quite hard.
> Third, it's no harder to make a large wheel round than a small one.
Then make me a wheel mile-high!
> Fourth, balance doesn't matter, because the wheels turn at very low speed.
Spin a top. It only falls after losing the speed of rotation.
At lower speeds, balance is the most important factor.
> Fifth is the difference in leverage between you brute force pushing
on a car
> and pulling on properly placed ropes. You have a problem understanding
> simple machines?
No. But I have a problem with what the diff is between brute force in
either pushing or pulling. Some cars seem to have been made for pushing..
> First of all, do you think only scientists work for NASA? You think
> don't have firefighters, trash collectors, drivers, and every other
> blue-collar trade imaginable?
And they are all given a free account with nasa.gov.? I don't think so.
> Second of all, yes, NOW I make a living as a scientist, but that doesn't
> mean it's the only thing I can do or have done. Maybe when you make it to
> twelve (either mentally or physically)
Insult noted.. Mr. Scientist
> you'll understand that a person
> doesn't ever have to be just one thing in their life. On the other hand,
> maybe you wont.
Since I was a baby all my life in your opinion - why not?
> >Very realistic - we all have access to quarries in our backyards
> >just like you!
> Perhaps not, but you could use a large stone to get the idea.
A large irregularly shaped stone? Really?
> > But, I have worked in a couple of quarries, and
> >nowhere did I see 10-ton rocks, there.
> And what kind of quarry did you work in?
Both quarries produced gravey.
> >What quarry produces 10-ton blocks, which it moves by your method?
> None of the commercial ones do; they'd be stupid to, since it's much
> efficient to use modern machinery. Now that I've said that, I know of
> private quarries that do use this technique, because a simple winch attached
> to the front of their truck is more than sufficient to move stones that size
> and larger up out of the quarry. In fact, if you dig up OMNI from some of
> the early years, they have a picture and a story about somebody (back east
> I believe) who uses this technique.
Should I search through the first decade of OMNI? Thanks.
> >Where is this block you spoke about? Perhaps, we can get an
> >investigator on the site..
> > It's in Israel, on a kibbutz in the Golan area, acting as a capstone for an
> air-raid shelter. Of course, you'll have to go down through 5 or 6 meters
> of dirt, first.
Why, I'm not a bomb..
> >What gave you the idea?
> Some of the wooden objects I've seen in displays of items taken from the
> tombs, that look rather like parts of cradles except they're not shaped
> quite right for it.
It's rather tough to look like something, when not being shaped quite
right for it. You must have a lot of fantasy.
> >Where are the witnesses, etc?
> On the Kibbutz
> >Conclusion: In absence of any evidence whatsoever, we have to
> >suspect that you Kevin Quitt are an unscrupulous prevaricator.
> If you had any brains at all, you'd realize that the method will work
> stated whether or not I've done what I've said, and *that's* the critical
> piece of information. It doesn't matter whether I've done it (although I
> have), but rather that it can be done.
I still doubt your word very much.
For one, you have hidden the wheel under six feet of dirt,
for two, you claim to have had no help. ON a kibbutz, it is unlikely.
I just don't envision you doing this.
You saw the idea in OMNI, or saw it applied by a truck with a winch,
as you mention. Don't they have those on kibbutzes? Sure?
> >When I want to tell people about something extraordinary like
> >prehistorical mathematics, I back my words up with a Web-site,
> >where my proofs are available to everyone to check out.
> So I've seen. Humorous, if simple-minded.
Insult noted. That's for sure.
> >The fact
> >that there are no skeptical critics (skepto-crits) using my
> >materials proves to you that I have something real there..
> No, it merely demonstrates that nobody in their
> can be bothered to pay any attention to it.
Insult noted. Your attitude is evidently a mere excuse for being
unable to muster any sensible criticism whatsoever. You're
mired in typical Denial. Pleasant wallowing..
note: Quitt has damned my discovery as silly, and
I had no sympathy for him. I felt that his story was
all trumped up, while he was acting contemptuously.
For the sake of Science-Art, and Atlantis, I had to deflate
this guy's bubble somehow.
Next Top Menu Nasca Monkey Report Namon's Gallery