GordonP
|
Re: Solstice
Sep 01, 2003, 17:40
|
Hi Steve
The reason I mentioned rope is that I don't want to use modern tools on the day, if we can set the tower up, pre-drill all the holes, then strip it again all well and good. Did you mention 15ft tower logs because that is the smallest "footprint" you consider safe? A 12ft length of log would be easier to handle.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Solstice
Sep 01, 2003, 18:03
|
|
No, I just assumed that since the block is 32 feet long and we are building two towers under it they would need 15 foot logs. I suppose we could have a bit of overhang at each end. The transverse logs need to be as wide as the block plus enough to carry the fulcrum logs. I take the point about using modern tools. Even a brace and bit might be ridiculed. Actually, the only purpose of dowelling the longitudinal logs to the transverse ones is to prevent them from slipping inwards under the pressure of the props. If we had short timbers with both ends bird-mouthed we could put these between the longitudinal logs like noggings (for non-joiners a noggin is a short bracing timber placed between main timbers). Once the props are fitted and wedged everything will tighten up nicely. If the longitudinal logs were partly notched out where the bird-mouths fit that would prevent the props or noggings from slipping along them.
|
GordonP
|
Re: 3.1415926538 in the sky
Sep 01, 2003, 18:05
|
|
One day is what people will remember, 130 and people is what they remember of the BBC film, even though in reality it was over 200.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: 3.1415926538 in the sky
Sep 01, 2003, 18:15
|
|
Yes, I agree, but I still think it would be good to row the 40 tonner for some considerable distance and up a hill. We could do it a month before hand so that the construction is still percieved as a one day event.
|
GordonP
|
Re: Solstice
Sep 01, 2003, 18:23
|
|
Right 12ft or maybe even less. I was thinking four logs in each layer of each tower, I mentioned ripping the logs down to an even thickness knowing that that is not what the ancients would have done. It might be to our advantage to follow exactly what I think they would have done, that is thickness the logs just at the intersecting points, square the intersection on the insides of the tower and the whole thing will almost hold it'self together. If we use birdmouth buttress at the points of intersection we might not even need dowels.
|
GordonP
|
Re: 3.1415926538 in the sky
Sep 01, 2003, 18:34
|
|
Pretend the ten tonner is the big event, rowing that is, invite the media. When some bigshot comes out of the woodwork and as a gyb about it not working with a 40 ton stone I'll ask him to put his money where his mouth is, could be a good little earner.
|
jimit
|
Re: Stone Shifting 2
Sep 01, 2003, 19:39
|
|
Start another bloody thread, Nigel. I've told you before, I won't tell you again. ;) ;)
|
baza
|
Re: Project title?
Sep 01, 2003, 19:59
|
|
The Hanging Stones Project
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Stone Shifting 2
Sep 01, 2003, 20:24
|
Jim said bloody.
OK, it's done.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Stone Shifting 2
Sep 01, 2003, 22:04
|
|
What do you mean "It's done"? I can't find a trace of Stone Shifting 3
|
