Next     Top Menu   Nasca Monkey Report   Namon's Gallery  
Previous Articles   Frame   Frame's Triple Hexagon
   Frame's Pentagram

Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:21:42 -0700
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,alt.alien.visitors,sci.skeptic,
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. Only, I still try
> > 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 done, or even one
> of the ways. Merely that it *can* be done that way.

> >You coudn't possibly find a solid log thicker than this block, hence to
> >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, large wooden
> 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. 10 tons of truck
> 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 advice
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 were ever used
> >in building of any pyramids.

> Granted; I merely point out that it doesn't require modern equipment to move
> heavy loads.

I have never disputed that. Of course there are limits to what you say.
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
to Rome).
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.


Afternote (sic): Let's pause for 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 outside
of the taller wooden wheel. This spells troubles for the project..

> >Another problem would be the difficulty of using such wheels for 70-ton
> >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 lot of work, but
> 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 postulated 4-meter wide
> >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* explanation. There have been
> other reasonable ideas posted.

Such as?

> 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 could have a
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 bottom of 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
> communicate.

                                      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 skeptical party? :)




> How would you judge your statement "Then make me a wheel mile-high"? Was it
> contributory to the discussion? I think not.

I did not attribute a personality feature to you. If I really were
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 build, and
> 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 Pyramid,
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.

Jiri Mruzek

Next     Top Menu   Nasca Monkey Report   Namon's Gallery  

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