Next     Top Menu   Nasca Monkey Report    Namon's Gallery   

Previous Articles    Frame   Frame's Triple Hexagon   Frame's Pentagram

To Be Able To Work - All At The Same Time

Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:53:49 -0700
From: Jiri Mruzek <>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 01:41:45 -0700, Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >Ten times as much weight remains the decisive consideration.
> Not at all. The considerations are the axle friction (none for the stones,
> plenty for a car), and the rolling friction (much lower for a larger, hard
> wheel).

Excuse me, but I'll go on supposing that rolling a ten-ton cylinder, slapped
into shape with four pieces of wood presents major problems.

> >Modern tires roll easily, and their rubber is quite hard.
> Actually, they don't, and have you seen how much the rubber flexes? That's
> the energy you're putting into pushing the car, being turned into heat. Why
> do you think the solar racers and high-mileage test vehicles use large,
> solid rubber tires? It's because of the tremendous gain.

Well inflated tires roll easily. Once they stand up that is. It's harder
to stand up a single ten-ton wheel.

> >> Third, it's no harder to make a large wheel round than a small one.

> >Then make me a wheel mile-high!

> While you're being an ass, why not ten miles?

While? Meaning never? Anyhow, Your manner is slipping,
and so is your image.

> >> 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.

> Balance is meaningless for an axle with wheels at the end. Maybe you just
> can't visulaize what I've been talking about. Nail a solid wood wheel on
> either end of a 4x4. Now, imagine the 4x4 is a block of stone sticking
> through matching holes in the wheels, which wheels are (e.g.,) 6 feet in
> diameter. Got it? No balance problem at all. Now wrap ropes around the
> stone (which is off the ground) in the desired direction of travel.
> Get people to pull on the ropes for uphill or downhill travel, or you can 
> push on the wheels on the level.

Huh? Pardon me? You were talking about a single wheel, or cylinder.
Now, we get a couple of giant wheels affixed on either Long End of
a huge monolith. How wide are you becoming, and does this width not
place voluminous demands on the accesss-ramps? Sure, it does.
Those become too much to handle. It's a dead-end street again.
some snipping

> Of course they do. We didn't move the rock that way because it was the
> easiest or best way to do it. I moved it that way because I had made the
> comment that it could be done; they found it hard to believe and agreed to
> let me perform the experiment.
> It's really not that big a deal to be able to move a great deal of weight on
> a hard surface. Haven't there been musclemen who've pulled airplanes as a
> demonstration? They're certainly the equal in weight (and more) of the
> stone I moved. I'm sorry it's not more mysterious.

In smiling with amusement - even if you can push or pull or roll
large weights on straight low friction surfaces, when you try to
solve the problem of How and with What knowledge the pyramid was
constructed - you run into insurmountable problems with your methods
in no time flat.

> You just have a hard time understanding that high-tech isn't required to do
> a lot of gross work. If one man can lift 50 pounds, then 1000 men can lift
> 25 tons. (The problem is finding a way for them all to be able to work at
> the same time.)

Really? I thought I have been saying that all along..

Jiri Mruzek


I've got 300 horses under my hood..
Next  Top Menu   Nasca Monkey Report    Namon's Gallery   

Previous Articles    Frame   Frame's Triple Hexagon   Frame's Pentagram