|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone Shifting 2 |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
baza 1308 posts |
Aug 28, 2003, 18:03
|
||
|
I can`t see how there could have been room *within* the circle to erect the outer circle of trilithons. Presumably, the inner, horseshoe-shape of trilithons would have to be put up first, then the outer circle would have been erected from the outside. To answer a previous question, the uprights are smooth on the inside and rough on the outside. baz
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 28, 2003, 21:12
|
||
|
Hi Guys Just had a face to face with Steve (he was in Derby on business) believe me we can't fail. If we all dig holes in the lawn and give him the figures, he'll tweak the model till it's bang on, then we can check it on the 10 tonner and we're there.
|
|||
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 28, 2003, 23:41
|
||
|
Hi Baz > I presume that we`d be going for the lowest figure. Nope, were going for the biggy. A full Trilithon with 40 ton uprights. > I don`t know how deep the stones were set into the ground. Apparently it varied, but about 8 feet seems a typical figure. > By depth, do you mean width? The width of the stone dragging on the tower? Or is that irrelevant once you know the coefficient of friction? OK, I had to decide whether to refer to the stone as height and width or length and depth, depending on whether you consider it on its side or erect. Because I started calling the height of the tower "height", I decided that I would consider the stone on its side and refer to length and depth to avoid having two different things called "height". That leaves "width" to describe the remaining dimension (the one that's in contact with the tower). Length and depth are the only two figures that effect the moment of inertia (for a stone of uniform dimensions). The width is irrelevant and also does not affect the friction to any significant degree. The coefficient of friction depends only on the nature of the two surfaces regardless of the area of contact. The frictional force (in any given situation) is just the weight acting onto the surface times the coefficient of friction (end of today's course in A-level mechanics). > Can you tell me what the offset variable relates to, please? I don`t understand that one. Yes, it's the overhang of the centre of the block from the edge of the tower. I started calling it overhang and refered to it by this name in several TMA postings, but then I changed it to "Offset" just because "Overhang" was too long for the screen space I had allocated. Since my main concern was to finish the model and get it posted I didn't want to spend time resizing all the boxes. Sorry if it wasn't clear. I did think about putting dimension arrows on the picture whenever the cursor moves over a text box. So if you put the mouse over "Height" a dimension arrow would appear next to the tower showing which dimension was height on the picture. Unfortunately this idea was also subject to the time guillotine. It might make it into the next release, but my main concern is to correctly model the hole.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 29, 2003, 00:02
|
||
|
Yes, hi Gordon, and thanks for your hospitality, today. I had a warm welcome and a friendly chat about... well, work it out for yourselves. During our conversation he mentioned that being a humble carpenter doesn't easily open doors. Well, Gordon, I reckon you need a promotion. How about "Project Director"? I guess I would qualify as "Scientific Consultant", we probably also need a "Marketing Director", "Archaeological Consultant", "Treasurer", "Secretary", "Press Officer", "Catering Manager", "Bar Manager", etc. Any takers? However, what we are lacking is a project. Well, yes, alright, OK, we do have a project:- "To erect a trilithon in 24 hours on Salisbury Plain on June 20th 2004 using less than 50 people". But it doesn't exactly slide off the tongue like a sarsen into a hole, so what do we call the project? My suggestion was "Project Solstice", but we should have ideas from everyone and then let Gordon pick the one he likes best. Let's have some fun ones too. How about: "Drop the Dead Dolmen", "Quick Erections"? Now there's an idea: do you think we could get sponsorship from Viagra?
|
|||
|
morfe lux 301 posts |
Aug 29, 2003, 05:08
|
||
|
the 'Oarsome Megaliths' or the Trilithon Triathlon!.. (groans) Good luck
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 29, 2003, 06:48
|
||
|
... "Trilithon Triathlon!" I was going somewhere around there! You beat me to it though :-) Why does anyone need titles? Make it an anarchist venture! Some people might have expertise, but that doesn't make them the only people with ideas. When you start handing out titles to people they tend to think that they are the only ones entitled to say anything within that scope. It makes you think they're only thinking about how their name looks in the press later. Sorry, but I hate titles - invented to keep people in their place and nothing more. However, being as I am probably going to have very little to do with this amazing project, apart from very interested onlooker, I'll shut me gob :-)
|
|||
BlueGloves 858 posts |
Aug 29, 2003, 07:28
|
||
'keeper of the cairns and curricks' ...
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 29, 2003, 09:10
|
||
|
Have a project title, yes good idea, but which project? Doesn’t it naturally fall into 2 parts, and hasn’t Gordon had two separate ideas? It seems to me that we could first of all make a big deal out of part one, transporting a single standing stone and pivoting it into place. It would be enough to make a big impact in terms of commercial interest and archaeological cred, and might give us a better springboard and support in both respects for going on to the big one. The idea of “Stone-walking” is such a great one that I’d like it to have it’s own starring role first rather than being eclipsed by the Trilithon thing. Any element of failure in the latter (dare I say there’s at least a possibility of that?) would be a shame in itself but it would be an even bigger tragedy if the stone-walking brainwave was discredited because it was linked with photos of a wonky trilithon… Yes, Gordon, I know it won’t happen, but I’d just like to know that you’re looked up to by the establishment before you even try. The thing is, part one is pretty much a practise for the big event so you’re going to have to do it anyway, so why not make it a big deal? Another (tentative, slightly mischievous) thought about the first project: if you’re going to row a stone some distance before erecting it, wouldn’t it be a bit of fun to start the journey by floating it along a local river for a little way? The Bluestone project sounds like a good name. The last attempt to move a bluestone was a bit of a horlicks as you know. Apart from the little matter of sinking it they found dragging it overland was a huge problem. In that respect at least you should be able to demonstrate a far better method. (They had a £100,000 Millennium grant. Wouldn’t it be satisfying for a “humble chippy” to show them how to do it!)
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 29, 2003, 09:14
|
||
Stone Row - ing ....
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 29, 2003, 09:17
|
||
Absolutely.
|
| Pages: 17 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
