Steve Gray
|
Re: Don't groan ..
Aug 29, 2003, 10:13
|
|
No, we don't really need titles for any self-indulgent reasons, but being able to phone the likes of English Heritage and say "I'm project director for ...", is likely to get you further than "I'm this carpenter guy who's had a good idea about how to move big stones". You just get fobbed off by the lesser people in the organisation without reaching those who matter. Call yourself "project director" however and they daren't fob you off in case you are someone really important and they get their ear chewed off by their boss.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Don't groan ..
Aug 29, 2003, 10:23
|
|
That's a fair point
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Don't groan ..
Aug 29, 2003, 10:33
|
|
And add the year, 2004, to the project title. Sounds focussed, not like you're a dreamer.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Don't groan ..
Aug 29, 2003, 11:44
|
|
Actually, yes, that's the point. We have to be focussed. Not individually, but as a team. That's why titles matter, they define areas of responsibilty and minimise duplication of effort. There's no reason why one person cannot have several roles, but it makes sense to divide the tasks according to ability and level of comittment. We also need to present the image of a well-organised and motivated team properly geared up to carry out the project, rather than a loose-knit bunch of amateurs who are liable to lose interest, or just "take the money and run". In other words, any potential backers needs to view us as a good risk. Defined roles help to achieve that.
|
baza
|
Re: Stone Shifting 2
Aug 29, 2003, 12:27
|
Thanks for the explanation of my queries on the model.
>Nope, were going for the biggy. A full Trilithon with 40 ton uprights.
So, we are talking about the erection of one of the inner horseshoe of trilithons at Stonehenge, utilising the stones used by the BBC in their experiment.
Presumably, that would entail the `rowing` of three stones to an 8 feet deep hole (both uprights would have to go into the same hole). The raising of the two uprights on their platforms to a sweet height to tip into the hole, followed by the raising of a lintel, twenty feet above the ground on its tower, for lateral movement onto the uprights.
I can foresee a few serious problems!
Do we know the dimensions of the BBC stones?
baz
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Don't groan ..
Aug 29, 2003, 12:36
|
I totally agree. We’re about halfway towards having a good product: the concept, photos of Gordon’s demonstrations and your computer modelling. What we still need is a slick project presentation, and some big name associates.
Also, though it seems mundane, we need to show that we’ve got a solid strategy so far as safety and insurance is concerned. We could put that in place, in principle, by talking to the relevant bodies, without actually shelling out any money yet. Unless we’ve got that, no-one will touch us.
|
Steve Gray
|
Computer Model Update
Aug 29, 2003, 12:37
|
|
I have started a new topic "Computer Model Update". That was a mistake, I only meant it to be a new header in this thread. However, it's probably a good idea to have it as a separate thread so that the model-related discussion is in one place.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Stone Shifting 2
Aug 29, 2003, 12:49
|
> So, we are talking about the erection of one of the inner horseshoe of trilithons at Stonehenge, utilising the stones used by the BBC in their experiment.
That's the idea, if we can get permission to use them.
> both uprights would have to go into the same hole
Yes, you're probably right. From the pictures I've seen of the BBC trilithon there's not much space between the stones.
> followed by the raising of a lintel, twenty feet above the ground on its tower, for lateral movement onto the uprights.
24 feet, I believe.
> I can foresee a few serious problems!
The more forsight we have, the better. Please let us know what problems you anticipate.
> Do we know the dimensions of the BBC stones?
Not exactly. Gordon has some pictures, which I have seen, but not accurate dimensions. The stones are about 32 feet long and the top "half" (I use that term very loosely) has a distinct taper.
|
ocifant
|
Re: Stone Shifting 2
Aug 29, 2003, 12:56
|
<i>Please let us know what problems you anticipate.</i>
I suspect the strength of the tower will be a major safety point. Hopefully Gordon's chippy experience can help there...
<i> The stones are about 32 feet long and the top "half" (I use that term very loosely) has a distinct taper. </I>
Presumably you can amend the model to cater for the change in centre of gravity that this would bring about? I've noticed when playing with the model that it doesn't need much of a change (a few cms) to switch from success to failure, even with the 'ideal' block currently in the model.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Stone Shifting 2
Aug 29, 2003, 13:02
|
Yes, on Octifant's last point....
Steve, I’ve managed to download your earlier versions and will do the latest one shortly. It’s superb, and I think I’ll give up the lawn and just play with it from now on!
I have 2 questions:
You can achieve a good result many ways by different combinations of variables – height, offset etc so I’m a bit puzzled about how to focus. Would it be right that the height variable should be pinned down to “as low as practicable”, and then the other variables can be tweaked? Or are you and Gordon undecided about height?
Secondly, you can get the stone to just stand up, but a very marginal alteration to the parameters will take it too far and it will pitch forward or not far enough and it will fall back. So I’m wondering about margins of error – A.) should the adopted computer model be one where X% variation in the variables won’t matter, as it will still work, and B.) should the real-world arrangement include “emergency buttressing” for if the stone pitches forward unpredictably?
|
