nigelswift
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 10:53
|
"Presumably the top end would be supported by the tower".
I wonder if you're thinking that I'm thinking the timber would be on the near (left on Gordon's model) side of the hole. I was thinking of it being in the hole and slightly leaning towards the right, i.e. propped against the right hand lip of the hole. So the earth would take much of the impact. Plus, additional buttressing for it at it's top end, if needed.
I guess in my layman's terms I was thinking if we were allowed to have a really deep tapering hole then it would be really easy to get the stone upright in it, but since we are only allowed a shallow hole why not effectively lengthen the hole's far side, upwards and at a slightly widening angle, using a tall piece of timber (or several). So far as the stone knows, it's now being tipped into a tapering deep hole and if the timbers don't break it has zero choice but to end up pretty upright.
I may have misunderstood you though in which case sorry about banging on about it.
|
Moth
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 14:50
|
Shut up both of you. (TWATS.)
love
Moth
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 15:00
|
|
Keep yer proboscis out of it. This thread's for vertibrates.
|
Moth
|
I'll get me wings...
Sep 08, 2003, 15:09
|
Oo! I resemble that remark!
Sorry, I'll let you get back to your serious on topic discussions!!! LOL!
love
Moth
|
jimit
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 15:56
|
|
Remember Occam's Razor gentlemen!
|
jimit
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 16:00
|
|
Oops. Alt. sp. "Ockham's" :)
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 17:49
|
|
OK, I had misunderstood; I thought your timbers were on the side nearest to the tower. But if they are on the opposite side then you have the problem that there is not enough space for the stone to rotate (unless the timbers are at a very shallow angle). Some time back I mentioned the idea of a "flying shore" to arrest the rotation. I'll include a picture of this when I post the rest of the drawings.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 17:57
|
Not sure which spelling is correct. I think Occam was a computer language designed for the ill-fated transputer, but it might have been named after William of Occam (or Ockham). A search on Google reveals plenty of choice either way.
Anyway, as I understand it, his principle is basically: Given a choice between several theories, the simpler one is most likely to be correct.
|
GordonP
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 18:06
|
Hi All
People never know when I'm joking even face to face, still it makes for an interesting life, anyway dropping stones into holes. Now we are not trying to get it fully upright it's a doddle, and I see no problems nudging it up the last bit either. All we need now is some practise, and some more credibility, all I had a month ago was an A+ in woodwork, now we've got a phyisicist, and a surveyor, anyone else out there with qualifications,
I'm keeping my fingers crossed about the archaeologist, but just in case, anyone else got any contacts in that direction.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 18:17
|
Practice, yes, and a bit of testing - and lots of photos, and as soon as possible. The reason being, your fame is spreading to other websites and I don't want someone else getting some stone rowing credit.
This lot are into moving stones bigtime, but they find it a bit hard. I reckon they’re in for a surprise.
http://www.bigstones.com/index.php
Also, here's your American cousin:
(Trouble is, he doesn’t say how he does it, and you have to pay to find out!)
http://www.gizapyramid.com/wallington.htm
(I reckon he walks them, since he does it alone, but if he wasn't JohnnyNoMates he might hit on your idea).
|
