|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone Shifting 2 |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 14:40
|
||
If we are going to dig a hole we need to take a concrete fence post or steel girder with us (I've go both in my garage) so that we can exert some forces on the chalk and see how it reacts. An A-frame, a piece of rope, a large bucket and something heavy to fill it with (water?) would enable some accurate enough measurements to be made. We don't need a very deep hole - I want to see is how much strain is needed to break the chalk and I can then scale it all up for the big one. The sooner it breaks, the less work will be needed and the sooner we can all go home again, though it would be nice to see the BBC's trilithon while we are down there.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 14:58
|
||
According to Sir Isaac, force is rate of change of momentum. An abrupt stop generates very large forces, which is why cars are designed with crumple zones these days. We need considerably less force to stop the stone if we change the momentum more slowly. Stopping it in say 1/10th of a second instead of say 1/100th second will reduce the force by a factor of 10. We could do this by binding something spongy onto the part of the block that will impact with the edge of the hole. A bunch of plaited rope (like they have on the front of tug boats for just the same reason) might be an authentic choice.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 17:15
|
||
The Trilithon is on the army training ground (though no one seems to know exactly where). I've had one team of TV production company researchers looking for it before. At one time "Hit Wildlife" were going to feature my theories on their recent programme about Stonehenge, Unfortunately they decided to stick to the "why"? of Stonehenge and not the "how"? So I don't think we'll get a peak at it just yet.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 17:24
|
||
I can soon make an "A" frame (how tall?) I've got a builders bucket, pick, shovel and I can get some rope. When shall the dirty deed be done? I'm free next Sunday.
|
|||
baza 1308 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 17:44
|
||
|
I have been bemused by the way that that this thread has evolved. You`re busy trying to work out the details of swinging a 40 ton stone, perched on a flimsy platform above the ground, when we haven`t even moved (never mind lifted) such a stone as far as one inch! Don`t get me wrong, I believe that it *can* be done, but *certainly not* in one day, and with resources that are far beyond our means, at present. As far as I can see, a 4 ton stone has been moved a short distance on a *prepared surface* and been raised 4 feet onto pallets. We`ll need a hell of a lot more practical experience than that to be able to decide what`s required to shift a 40 ton stone. I reckon that a flimsy, unsafe tower, 12 feet high, would require a minimum of 72 logs of 1 foot diameter, over one third of which would be about 30 feet long (and that`s assuming that the logs can carry the weight). As for a platform for the `oarsmen`, it seems that we`re going to cheat by hiring some scaffolding. I`ll try not to mention this again, but you should settle for moving a 40 ton stone over Salisbury Plain, an enormous task, first. If you can do that, you`ll get the funding for tackling the far more difficult and expensive problem of raising a trilithon. Anyway, the sooner we get a small team together to actually get some practise in shifting stones about, the better. :o) baz
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 17:54
|
||
|
If it's OK with the owners of this site, how about TMA Project Solstice 2004? As soon as we've agreed a title we need some headed notepaper, perhaps with a Trilithon as a logo. Can it be done on a computor and be available as a download (is that the right word? I'm new to all this). I have to write to the board of the museum for official permission, impressive headed notepaper will help.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 18:06
|
||
|
Some fair points Baza, all I can say is I believe what we are proposing is possible and in the timespan stated. Whether we can actually do it is down to us, As regards getting our hands dirty and doing some testing the sooner the better.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 20:48
|
||
|
> I reckon that a flimsy, unsafe tower, 12 feet high, would require a minimum of 72 logs of 1 foot diameter, over one third of which would be about 30 feet long (and that`s assuming that the logs can carry the weight). As for a platform for the `oarsmen`, it seems that we`re going to cheat by hiring some scaffolding. We are not planning to build a flimsy, unsafe tower. There will be two independent towers, so most of the logs will be only 15' or so. The bedrock is chalk which should provide a good, stable footing. The logs will probably be of the order of 6". The weight is carried primarily at the points of intersection of the logs and the compressive strength of timber is well up to the task. It is my intention that the towers will be braced to the ground with diagonal timber shoring every 4 feet or so, and that the support logs will be dowelled together in the layer where these shores are attached. The sheer weight acting at the intersections will provide sufficient friction to hold the other layers together. It is not my intention to "cheat" as you put it. I suggested only that we *might have to* use scaffolding towers to comply with health and safety regulations. I think that elevating a 40 ton stone on logs is sufficient proof without also having to demonstrate that we could lift 40 people on log platforms, but if health and safety issues can be resolved, then I'm all for being as authentic as possible, if only to thwart the critics. > I`ll try not to mention this again, but you should settle for moving a 40 ton stone over Salisbury Plain, an enormous task, first. If you can do that, you`ll get the funding for tackling the far more difficult and expensive problem of raising a trilithon. I agree that this would be a good precursor to the main event. We should see how far we can row it in a day. Rowing it a few feet would not be very convincing, but a whole day with the same team would give a much more realistic measure of how good the method really is. > Anyway, the sooner we get a small team together to actually get some practise in shifting stones about, the better. OK, baz, looks like we have four or five volunteers so far, how many more from this thread can we count on? We need 10 to row the 10 tonner that Gordon is lining up at Derby.
|
|||
|
baza 1308 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 21:38
|
||
|
>We are not planning to build a flimsy, unsafe tower. That`s probably the main difference beteween `then` and `now`. They didn`t have H&S regulations to take into consideration. I was just trying to get some idea of the bare minimum amount of good quality logs, of equal straight length and diameter, which would be required to get the job done. I assumed that for every fulcrum point (on one side of the stone) we`d need a log going under the width of the stone (to its equivalent fulcrum point on the other side), for support. If two towers are used, it`ll be difficult to get them in full alignment without some prior preparation of the ground. Whatever method is used, I wanted to point out that a very large amount of sorted timber is going to be required. Gordon still seems to think that it can all be done in a day. No chance! baz
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 31, 2003, 21:45
|
||
One of us is gonna be eating humble pie
|
| Pages: 17 – [ Previous | 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 16 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
