Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:21:42 -0700
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
The Wheeled Blocks
part 5 - Mechanical Disadvantage
Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:15:14 -0700, Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > Only an amoebe could not understand your diagram.
> > to visualise your method being applied to the 1,200-ton Baal-bek block
> > Hadjar el Gouble, as you said it could have been.
> Mind you, I'm not claiming that this *is* the way it was
> of the ways. Merely that it *can* be done that way.
> >You coudn't possibly find a solid log thicker than
> >form the wheel, you would have to strap wooden pads on somehow, and hope
> >that your materials will take the stress at the joints.
> There are known construction techniques for making strong,
> wheels. It's similar to how plywood is made, but you don't use thin sheets
> of wood.
> >I see the wheels shattering after the first roll.
> A blatant guess on you part, with no informtion behind it.
> won't crush a two-by-four. Further, there could be more than just two
> wheels along the length of the block, for large enough blocksk.
Fidonet-Science once carried a thread, in which some guy sought
on how to move this 90 ton machine out of his shop. A slew of amazing
problems had materialized. If you actually tried to move the Hadjar el
Gouble, I am sure that a slew of problems would ensue, just as well.
> >There are absolutely no indications that such methods
> >in building of any pyramids.
> Granted; I merely point out that it doesn't require modern
> heavy loads.
I have never disputed that. Of course there are limits to what
For instance: To mount wheels, you would have several choices like
hoisting the block up, or dig holes, and then roll the wheel out,
or build three sides - roll the block, add the fourth side.
The problem is in getting enough people connected to the relatively
compact block to carry out all the chores.
Here I reminesce that no skeptics have acknowledged my objections to
them for citing obelisk transporting ability as proof of ability to move
large compact blocks (Romans moving a 360-ton obelisk from Egypt
Obelisk shape is basically long and narrow. If we made a 1,000 ton
obelisk long enough, we could have a swarming cloud of butterflies
carry it. It would just take a lot of butterfly labor, and organization.
But the same butterflies could never ever concentrate in the space
above a compact 1,200 ton block, as their column would need to rise
into the ionosphere.
A mechanical problem, Kevin:
Spooling towing lines on the smaller-diameter block produces
a mechanical dis-advantage. The length of rope needed to
turn the block once, will be shorter than the distance traveled
by the wheel, which will also spin around once.
a sec, and weigh matters. So, a NASA
engineer fell into my trap, because the mechanical disadvantage
flaw, marring the essence of his story - didn't occur to him. Hmm..
At the same time, this was a popular idea, I have seen mentions
of it before. Why, it was even shown on television, in one of those
debunking programs on "How It Was Done" (by primitive means)..
You would really need to spool your ropes somewhere near the
of the taller wooden wheel. This spells troubles for the project..
> >Another problem would be the difficulty of using such
> >blocks, or even 20 ton blocks on ramps around the Pyramid.
> I never said it would be easy in absolute terms. It'd be a
> can be split up amoung many people. With fair-sized chock blocks to prevent
> it rolling back down, the people would even get to rest occasionally.
> >Imagine rolling a 10-yard wide axle uphill on the
> >ramp. I don't even bother to imitate your discussion methods and call
> >this aberrant idea stupid, as deserving.
> Once again, I didn't mean for this to be *the*
> other reasonable ideas posted.
> My thought was mainly for transportation of
> the block to the sites rather than up the ramps. If the ramps were too
> narrow for the blocks, then obviously this technique wasn't used for moving
> the blocks up the ramp.
Well, only on the side ramps skimpy on material usage.. One
wide road atop a large-volume self-supporting ramp.
This Set Kevin Up
> >So, you have to spool
> >the rope around the square cylinder, and that means threading it between
> >the ground and the 1,200-ton block! You have to dig large holes underneath
> >the stone.
I pretended to go along with the absurd scenario,
Kevin Makes A "Biting" Remark
> No need to dig holes. When the
block is parallel to the
> ground, there's plenty of space underneath. So, yes, you stop once in a
> while and rewind the rope around the block. I'm glad to see I've finally
> got the idea across to you; I was beginning to doubt my own ability to
Coupe De Grace
With a large ditch along the planned route, you could slip a large
spooler onto the wheel, and thus regain the mechanical advantage.
Must I do problem-solving for the
> How would you judge your statement "Then make me a wheel
> contributory to the discussion? I think not.
I did not attribute a personality feature to you. If I really
everything others made me out to be - I'd need at least twelve heads.
I just meant that there is no limit to skeptics simply scaling Lo-Tech
up to any desired size. Wanna launch satellites into orbit?
Build a sloping ramp high enough.. It's just a lot of labor, but with
the eclat of Egyptian Work Ethic in our eyes - we could do it.
Just build a tall, tall ramp to up on high. Have labor gangs clad in
pressurized granite bowls transport the satellite up to the top, and
give it a good kick. It will fall into orbit automatically.. :)
> >Your axle is wider than the ramp.
> Then it wasn't used on the ramp.
> >> > and does this width not place voluminous
> >> > demands on the accesss-ramps? Sure, it does.
> >> Not really.
> > Brilliant. That'll convince them.
> I've seen the ramp at Masada. That didn't take long to
> could easily be made wide enough for the stones to travel up the ramp.
> And the ramp needn't be steep if it's long enough. You still overestimate
> the amount of work and underestimate how much can be done be enough people,
> given enough time.
With no signs of such a ramp to the higher reaches of the
this subject becomes purely academical, and generally oriented.
We still can't duplicate the Pyramid with Lo-Tech methods and
materials. Besides, I'd rather be talking about my discovery of
Stone-Age mathematics. There are no challengers to the Nasca Monkey.
Menu Nasca Monkey Report
Previous Articles Frame Frame's Triple Hexagon Frame's Pentagram