|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » The bluestone debate |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Nov 19, 2008, 21:44
Nov 19, 2008, 21:29
|
||
|
As I recall Julian's paper a consideration of the mechanics of transport was very much secondary and a bit of a "filler" as the main project was erection. I wasn't convinced by his musings about a formal track being built - it strikes me the labour cost would be massive, equivalent to building a 21 mile wooden road from Avebury all the way to Salisbury Plain and if there was any viable alternative they'd have gone for it. Foamhenge strengthened this feeling. It revealed you just don't need a track or rollers to shift stones. I also think the "steering problem" is overplayed - and in fact it's actually created by the use of a track or rollers. In the absence of those, going off-line isn't a crucial issue and you can re-adjust the alignment periodically using levers or by the even more blindingly simple expedient of simply carrying on pulling but slightly to one side.
|
|||
|
Stoneshifter 379 posts |
Nov 19, 2008, 21:36
|
||
|
"Form the covered wagons into a circle"! Err - yer what?
|
|||
|
tonyh 247 posts |
Nov 19, 2008, 21:45
|
||
|
Thats the way.. Form a circle. There is a indian circling.. Ohhh.. How fearsome am I.. Tony
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Nov 19, 2008, 22:26
|
||
|
At the end of the day I think we will have to "beg to differ on this question". Although you seem to ignore my reasoning that if you need 640 men to move a stone on rollers then my seemingly slower method of stone-rowing is actually far quicker because I can move 10 megaliths at the same time with such a workforce. Anyway I am the first man in written history to suggest picking up a megalith in order to move it, that is apart from William Stuckely, but that piece of information only came to light years after I first suggested Stone-rowing in an article in the Derby Evening Telegraph December 1999. Quite interesting though how he described the transport, stones moved using "leavers in the nature of galley oars". See Stuckely's Stonehenge An Unpublished Manusript 1721-1724 (Yale) by Aubrey Burl and Neil Mortimer.
|
|||
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Nov 19, 2008, 23:52
|
||
|
GordonP wrote: Although you seem to ignore my reasoning that if you need 640 men to move a stone on rollers then my seemingly slower method of stone-rowing is actually far quicker because I can move 10 megaliths at the same time with such a workforce. It's not a case of ignoring it, we just don't accept it. Your conclusion is just fanciful. It took a long time to row the stone a few tens of yards. It moved about 6 inches per stroke and around 10 strokes per minute at best. That's 5 feet per minute or 300 feet per hour, which is 0.0568 miles per hour. We actually didn't achieve anywhere near that in practice because the levers needed frequent respositioning, they wore quickly, some broke, there was slippage betwen the levers and the support logs and against the bottom of the block, and despite our efforts to slew the stone back on course with the levers it still kept veering away from the intended direction. The actual achieved speed was more like 0.02 mph. On the other hand the pullers quickly achieved a brisk walking speed of around 4 miles per hour. We started shouting out the number of feet travelled against a tape measure, but it soon got so fast that we couldn't say the numbers quickly enough to keep up. So the achieved speed ratio was around 200:1 with a workforce ratio of only 10:1. Even allowing for a conservative 3:1 rest/work ratio, draggin is still at least seven times more efficient.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Nov 20, 2008, 08:03
Nov 20, 2008, 07:23
|
||
|
"Even allowing for a conservative 3:1 rest/work ratio, draggin is still at least seven times more efficient.” I actually don’t see why a 3:1 rest/work ratio should be applied to dragging and not rowing. Gordon has always maintained that pullers would get exhausted after a very short time but I don’t accept that as inevitable or likely. If they do it’s a sign they’re having to pull too hard and they’re undermanned, nothing else. Work’s work, however it’s performed. Treble them up, work them less hard and they won’t get so exhausted. Once that’s done there’s no reason to postulate draggers would take any more breaks than rowers. And maybe less if all they have to do is plod along gently. Oxen manage. Gordon, it's not a matter of "begging to differ" or even being anti-your idea (why would your two previous staunchest supporters do that?) It's purely a matter of having to accept the evidence of our own eyes at Foamhenge that dragging is easier and more efficient per person than rowing - and not by a bit but by an absolutely huge margin. None of us realised that on paper but now we do. On that basis the only reason for postulating that rowing was the method of choice would be if they were forced into it because of lack of a large workforce for efficient dragging. But there's no evidence they had that problem, in fact quite the reverse. Stonehenge itself hardly looks like there was a labour shortage. And of course, in suggesting stonerowing may have involved ten small teams acting at the same time, you're acknowledging they did indeed have a large total workforce available. If they did then on the basis of Steve's calculations being only half right they could deliver a stone to Stonehenge every few days so I don't know where this 20 year process idea came from.
|
|||
sleeptowin 114 posts |
Nov 20, 2008, 10:06
|
||
|
so we can safely say that we dont know then? theres a few different ways it could have been done, no one knows for sure. it still doesnt answer why they even bothered though.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Nov 20, 2008, 10:40
|
||
|
Just a paper theory based on a flawed experiment (machine turned rollers were used). You are fond of describing yourself as a "physicist" presumably to add weight to your arguments, can you tell me what qualifications you hold in this respect?
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Nov 20, 2008, 11:05
|
||
Come on Gordon, trying to imply Steve is ill-qualified to say what he's said is unworthy of you - and a hell of a slap in the face to all the people, him most of all, that spent a huge amount of time and energy supporting you for months and years. It's no-one's fault that in the end stonerowing turned out to be far less effective than dragging, but what would you have us do - pretend it wasn't?
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Nov 20, 2008, 11:40
|
||
|
Hugh amount of time and energy? Who had the 12 ton replica made? I did. Who organized the transport for the same? I did. Who obtained permission to use the field at Crich? I did. Who obtained and paid for the insurance for the experiment? I did. Who two years before built a 4-ton concrete replica and did the initial experiments? I Did. That is not to say I am ungrateful for the help and encoragement I received from all who took part.
|
| Pages: 39 – [ Previous | 1 … 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
