|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone Shifting 2 |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 17:00
|
||
|
OK, the story so far (a summary of the original Stone Shifting thread). I found Gordons site, here… http://www.stonehengetheanswer.com/ Please read it all very carefully as it’ll save me time, and there’ll be a test later. I invited Gordon to come on here and he did. All you need to know about him, apart from the fact he’s come up with a great theory, is that he’s been working on it for years and has been looked down upon by the archaeology establishment, which is crazy since he’s actually tried it whereas most of them have just theorized. As someone who thinks outside the box on an issue that’s central to almost everything we discuss here he’s in tune with the ethos of this site and should be nominated as a TMA hero. He’s also a self-confessed mad bugger who’s willing to stand behind a 4O ton sarsen stopping it sliding back with a bit of wood so he may end up as a TMA Saint (do we have those?). I was going to summarize all the deliberations but it’s really too complex. All I can say is this: We all seem to agree that Gordon’s big idea of “rowing” stones WILL work, and, more to the point it’s never been thought of, yet it’s hugely more efficient than any other method that’s been theorized. I’d say by a factor of ten at least. And, bizarre but true, it’s not much more effort to go uphill. The implications of proving it are that previous assessments of numbers involved in making standing stone monuments could be revised downwards dramatically. We talked about erecting a TMA Gordon Stone, and that might be on the cards. We’d need a natural sarsen and a location (any suggestions?) There’s a hope for involvement by a film company and/or academics (anyone have any futher ideas or contacts?) Gordon thinks some practises with a concrete stone can be arranged at his workplace in Derby. (Sign up now as latecomers will be charged…) The same Gordon has suckered us all, by slow degrees, into talking about more and more ambitious projects, that he’s been thinking of all along. A ten ton stone! And, get this, erecting a full sized 90 ton replica of a Stonehenge Trilithon in less than 24 hours! The way he’d do it is on his website, but we’ve also been making suggestions for variations on his basic model like moving the pivot point and the shape of the hole and the height of the stone. Steve, who has two brains, is doing a computer simulation of how the stone would fall into the hole. The replica trilithon is currently in storage on Salisbury Plain. It was left over from a BBC project. They cheated, using modern methods, and used hundreds of people, and Gordon’s ideas look far better than theirs. There are bits about their project on the net, but the longest (too long) account is this rather bizarre transcript from an American radio phone-in on the subject… http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/New-Files/990630/secretsOfLostEmpires.txt That’s it then. For any more precise details, you’ll have to read through the original thread!
|
|||
Jane 3024 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 17:16
|
||
|
I have been following this thread with enormous interest, but don't take the fact that I haven't contributed to the discussion as a lack of enthusiasm! You say: <I>"We talked about erecting a TMA Gordon Stone, and that might be on the cards. We’d need a natural sarsen and a location (any suggestions?)"</I> How about suggesting it to Oxford Archaeology when they eventually get round to re-erecting the Devil's Quoits at Stanton Harcourt? OA are, after all, a business and every business needs good PR... Or would the Quoits be too small (andor precious/delicate) for this ambitious project?! Wherever it is, you can count me in for 'grunt' work/tea-making/cake or pudding distribution/shit-shovelling/cheer-leading/whatever support is required. J x
|
|||
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 17:46
|
||
|
Hi everyone and welcome to stone shifting 2. It's true, I do have two brains! One is under my desk and runs at 2.4GHz, the other is in my skull and works at a tiny fraction of that speed, but is reasonably adept at telling the first one what to do. Anyway, just to prove that I am fallable, I think I got the explanation wrong for the side forces on the Tower. Here is the revised version: The frictional force (which acts along the surface of the block) and the reaction force of the tower (which acts perpendicularly to the block) resolve to a vertical component that exactly balances with the weight of the block, so there is no side load. However, when the block begins to slip, the frictional force is no longer sufficient to balance the reaction force and the weight. This results in a net side load being imposed on the tower. To verify this theory, I placed a long wooden lath on top of a tall, narrow support block so that it would just overbalance. As the lath rotated the support block remained upright until the point of slipping was reached. It then imediately fell over. I'm happy with this new explanation for two reasons. Firstly, the side forces should be a lot less than I had feared and secondly, I couldn't get the maths to work properly before, but now it all falls into place quite nicely.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 18:11
|
||
|
Good, so slippage is our only enemy (A.) because it elongates the arc (rather unpredictably) and (B.) because it strains the tower. Perfect pivoting produces perfect positioning. And the thing is, contrary to my previous worrying about the roughness of the stone, it's only one small spot on the stone that should affect the motion, i.e. the point in contact with the edge of the tower. I think the Beeb man talked about making a notch, but rejected it on the grounds the ancients didn't. So our only way to minimize slippage is to maximize turning speed? (subject to depositing the stone vertical of course)?
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 18:24
|
||
****inhell I've been talking physics with a bloody physicist, I've got some good news when I can get my head right, in the meantime I need a drink.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 18:35
|
||
... how about lashing some logs along the underside edges of the stone and notching those? We could arrange them so that the stone didn't lose contact with the tower until it had become almost vertical...
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 19:06
|
||
|
OK Guys I've nearly got my head right so. The side force only comes into play when the stone starts to slip down the tower, but the rotational force that has built up in the stone means that this slipage only ocurrers for a short period so that as the rotatioal force takes the top half of the stone away from contact with the tower we're OK again. Steves long wooden lath would not have been heavy enough to build up much rotational force so it pushed the tower over. In the experiment I did with the 4 ton block the pallets only moved a matter of inches. If we buttress the tower to hold the force for a second or so the little bit of slippage we get will probably take some of the rotational force out of the stone and make it work better. The good news I was on about earlier, I've had a word with the manager of the museum and he has promised to get in touch with the manager of the quarry which is on the same site with a view to them supplying some land and a ten ton stone. He was pretty confident of the result.
|
|||
|
Steve Gray 931 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 19:27
|
||
|
I think that the slipping should be much more predictable with a large stone than with a small one. The sheer weight should be enought to overcome minor surface effects. From the computer model it should be possible to allow for the slippage and still hit the hole. However, one idea to avoid the problem might be to lash the block to the topmost log of the tower (I call this the pivot log) so that the log rotates with the block. This would keep the block from falling before it strikes the edge of the hole. Once it does, the rotational momentum would pull the log out of the tower as the block moves into it's upright position. It's easier to draw it thanto describe it. Anyway I have to go out now, I'll check in later this evening.
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 19:31
|
||
Thatud work
|
|||
|
GordonP 474 posts |
Aug 26, 2003, 20:44
|
||
Just some thoughts on the legs of the "A" frame getting stuck at the critical moment. I have always envised the legs of the "A" frame being placed in a sort of a timber trough (Greased) so that as the rope burns through the legs slide away freely. To work properly the "A" frame must be perfectly plumb, then the whole thing collapses out of the way.
|
| Pages: 17 – [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
