GordonP
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 18:24
|
Wrote an artical for the local paper back in the twentieth century, still got copy.
Been in touch with my mate Wally I wish him well.
Bigstones crew? to many brainboxes, they should send for Wally.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 19:57
|
OK, but Nigel's point is let's get on with it before somebody else turns us into also-rans.
Any news on getting a 10 tonner to move around in Derby, Gordon?
|
GordonP
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 20:07
|
|
Moving it as fast as I can, looking promising, it will take time though.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 22:52
|
OK, Nigel, here are the drawings I promised:
http://www.swifttools.com/Gordon's Erection.gif
http://www.swifttools.com/Steve's Erection.gif
http://www.swifttools.com/Flying Shore.gif
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Stone shifting 4
Sep 08, 2003, 22:55
|
Sorry folks, the links didn't work because of spaces in the filenames. I have removed the spaces so here are the links again:
http://www.swifttools.com/Gordon'sErection.gif
http://www.swifttools.com/Steve'sErection.gif
http://www.swifttools.com/FlyingShore.gif
Those of you who were expecting gay porn will be disappointed.
|
nigelswift
|
Alignment of Holes
Sep 09, 2003, 08:43
|
Steves anchor stone would probably work more efficiently if it was half buried as well as staked.
On the other hand that would bring us into an interesting and perhaps dangerous dialogue with the archaeologists as to where was the archaeological evidence. It would be tempting for us to point at the Aubrey holes, but it would be a high risk claim. On the other hand, they are placed precisely opposite each part of the outer sarsen circle in the way you'd expect, and original use for construction purposes isn't precluded by the fact they had significant astronomical placement or subsequent ritual use.
It's a ticklish one. Should we stick to just stakes, on the grounds the evidence for those won't be there, even though we may secretly think putting the anchor in a hole might be more efficient and more likely?
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Alignment of Holes
Sep 09, 2003, 10:16
|
We could also just use a heavier anchor stone. I'm pretty sure a 20 tonner wouldn't budge, but the lintel is 10 tons, it will be on site and we don't need to erect it until the uprights are in place. The stakes are just adding braces to the belt. The stakes might work by themselves if they were deep enough (3 feet or so?), but the anchor stone just makes sure that the rope can't pull them up.
It was a very tongue-in-cheek suggestion that it might explain some of the holes. Although it could be argued that any apparent astronomical alignment of the Aubrey holes may just be coincidentally related to the astronomical alignments of the outer sarsens. There are the Y and Z holes too. Could these have been for the erection of the trilithons?
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Alignment of Holes
Sep 09, 2003, 10:40
|
It's all very thin ice. The Y and Z holes may be younger as measured by analysis of their contents, but the holes themselves are less certain I suppose, except one set of them, I forget which, is definitely younger because of what they cut into.
The thing is, the existence of a hole doesn't preclude the idea that it replaced an earlier smaller hole. All we know is that you can draw a straight line from the centre, through any sarsen and then through it's equivalent x,y and (approximately) Aubrey stone. Why? A construction-related origin seems possible or even another origin but utilized in construction.
Nice though it would be to win that particular argument would it be safer to keep clear of it, and have a "surface" anchor, if you can do it?
|
goffik
|
Re: Moth balls
Sep 09, 2003, 10:43
|
Ooh! Get her!
For that remark, Mr Moth, I challenge you to a drinking competition - THEN you'll see what a TWAT is really like!
Love and hugs, you narky old shite.
G
xxx
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Alignment of Holes
Sep 09, 2003, 11:42
|
|
Another way to avoid the problem is to use a small A-frame in front of the anchor stone to change the direction of the rope so that it is pulling vertically on the stone. Since the tension in both parts of the rope are roughly the same, the A-frame needs to incline at about 45 degrees towards the anchor stone. This would require some shallow, angled holes to prevent it skidding. They don't need to be very deep, 6" or so should be OK. The A-frame also has the effect of increasing the height of the rope which gives a better range of movement to the weighting stone and might mean that we could do the whole job in a single "raise and lower" sequence.
|
