|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone shifting 4 |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Sep 06, 2003, 23:07
|
||
|
Nigel started the last thread with some real nice poetry, So I'll do the same, trouble is I'm not that educated, so I'll wing it, try this. To drink is to think To think is to do It works for me How about you Sorry about that, carry on.
|
|||
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Sep 06, 2003, 23:14
|
||
Hi Gordon. Can you please explain how you intend to lever the block up to vertical from off the tower, so I can forget about my 100 foot pole (bragging again).
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Sep 06, 2003, 23:45
|
||
|
The way I see it is this, if we can lift 40 tons of dead weight with levers, surely we can nudge the top end of 40 tons sideways. levering from the top must be much more efficient than driveing wedges in from the bottom. Don't ask me why I just know it will work. When the stone has been dropped into the hole and is at rest at something like 70 or 80 degrees there will be a space between the stone and the tower, build the tower up until it is level with the top of the stone, (without the stone on top this will be quick and easy) then fix a fulcrum log across the tower say 6 inches from the stone. Place 6 men on top of the tower who will insert 6 inch diameter levers between the stone and the tower vertically. these men will hold the 12ft levers upright. This will give an advantage of 11 to 1 on each lever. 5 men on ropes attached to the end of each lever will be equal to 55 men. 6 times 55 equals 330 men. More than enough. As the stone is moved upright packings (chalk rubble) is slipped in behind the stone at ground level. Should that almost no time at all.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Sep 07, 2003, 08:59
|
||
|
Morning All Sorry about the awful poetry and my scathing remark about the pole. I've sobered up again now so I should be OK until tonight. The thing is I think we've lost the plot as far as the erection goes, if we don't do it with just logs and levers then it becomes a totally different experiment, and nothing to do with log rowing. The whole point of the erection experiment is to prove that it is possible to erect the stone with basically the same tools we transported it with,
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Sep 07, 2003, 09:44
|
||
Sure, I agree, to the extent that it is possible to do it. However, I think there are some holes in your theory. Firstly, your maths is a little wishful. 11:1 mechanical advantage from the levers with five men pulling from the ground is 55 men. I don't see how the 6 men on top can multiply this up to 330. Also, the levers will only move the stone by about 1 foot. How do you then reposition the lever so that you can get another foot? We have to move the stone 11 feet at the top from 70 degrees.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Sep 07, 2003, 10:07
|
||
|
Hi Steve 6 levers, one man on each lever on the tower holding each lever in position, ropes leading from the end of each lever to ground level, that's 6 ropes, 5 men hauling on each rope, that's 30 men times 11, equals 330 men. Place two logs on top of the tower at right angles to the face of the stone, fix another log across these two for a fulcrum. lever the stone up, say 6 inches, pack chalk behind the stone against the face of the hole. The stone will then stand supported by the back face of the hole as before. Slide the three logs forward 6 inches and repeat. Keep repeating the proccess until the stone is upright. Less power will be required with each lift as the stone moves towards 90 degrees. The top of the tower serves as a working platform to lever the stone upright, we can even fit safety rails on three edges of the tower to satisfy modern requirements, the stone it'self forms a safety barrier on the remaining side. As the working platform follows the stone and extends away from the tower we can fit support legs.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 07, 2003, 10:30
|
||
|
This is a bit beyond me but I’m going to be away today so I thought I’d post one thought – if a way can be found to do both, i.e. levering from the back and using Steve’s pole at the front, that would be all to the good as Steve’s pole could be reduced to more manageable proportions and by using both, we may have an excess of available power, which we may find useful if there’s an unforeseen snag. And “All together” feels like a more authentic approach as well. So far as Gordon’s wish to keep much the same equipment as was used in stone rowing, well the only extras would be the net (which would have been available to them) and Steve’s pole which we know they definitely had, lots of them. There'll still be a lot of pure rowing in the process - the stone and the log and maybe the lintel. Also, Gordon, is it practicable/useful to row the stone to make it "walk the plank"?
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Sep 07, 2003, 11:29
|
||
|
"is it practicable/useful to row the stone to make it "walk the plank"?" Ooooo, no. If you're saying what I think you're saying it would topple while it's being lifted because the lever nearesst to the centre cannot be as close to the centre of gravity as the edge of the tower was. Very, very dangerous. Gordon, I think you idea may work. I hadn't appreciated that you meant to have 5 men per rope (silly me - see how the practical man, even with a skinful, has the advantage over the sober intellectual). We need to exert about 7 tons on the stone initially. A man can exert about half his own weight when pulling horizontally on a rope and all his weight when pulling vertically. So we can assume an average of at least 40kg per man of pulling power. Multiply that by your 11:1 lever advantage gives 440kg. Multiply that by 6 levers we get 2.5 tons with only one man per rope. Therefore 3 men per rope should be enough. Your horizontal timbers attached to the tower can extend either side of the stone and be supported beyond it with uprights, braces and a transverse log at the point where the stone will be vertical. Thus they will act as guides and the transverse log will act as a stop to prevent the stone from going too far. The main problem is the 7 ton side load exerted on the fulcrum log and on the tower, which will have to be built up to as high as the stone (24 feet). That's one hell of a torque - 168 foot-tons. Although diagonal braces are effective at resisting such a load when the weight of the stone was pressing down on the tower, they will be almost useless in the absence of vertical loading. Any ideas? I was trying to think of a way to keep chocking the stone so that we could use intermittent pulling. Packing chalk rubble behind it is nice and simple. We could use this with a weighted rope. The procedure would be: 1. Fasten a long rope to the top of the stone and fasten the other end to a suitably large anchor stone. 2. Lever a 3 ton block up on a wooden crib close to the middle of the rope. 3. Fasten the 3 ton block to the rope and then lever it back down, thus raising the monolith. 4. Pack chalk rubble behind the monolith. 5. Jack the 3 ton block back up and retension the rope. Repeat as necessary. Advanteges: 1. It's easy. 2. It uses your "levering and crib" method on the 3 ton stone. 3. It's safe (as long as the rope is strong enough). 4. It's nice simple technology that is likely to have been known.
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
Sep 07, 2003, 11:31
|
||
|
Sheesh! Get a room, willya? ;o) G x
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Sep 07, 2003, 11:51
|
||
|
Right Steve we have two methods to move the stone upright. as yet some details to work out with both. Both retain the principal of basically useing levers and logs. Just a quick thought on how to stablise the tower once the stone has been launched. Perhaps we can tie the diagonal strutts to the bottom of the stone, as the top moves say 6 inches or so the bottom will only move a fraction, by bottom I mean ground level. This will just have the result of tightening the anchor rope. we can then slacken it a bit before the next movement. I'll keep thinking.
|
| Pages: 15 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
