Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

nigelswift

8112 posts

Or maybe we should maximise slippage?

Aug 30, 2003, 13:49

“I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that we should keep things simple and just allow for slippage.”

Supposing, for now, that Gordon and everyone agrees with that (and of course they may not, and experimentation may prove them right).
So where do we go from there? We have a number of variables to tweak, and many combinations can achieve the same result, as I mentioned, but what should we be aiming at?

I think the height variable can be ignored, as I mentioned, since it can simply be thought of as the lowest possible elevation at which the finished system will work, so it’ll become abundantly clear from our experiments or your model.

So that leaves offset (and perhaps tilting the stone) to play with to determine the rotation.

Plus, now: slippage.
I’m thinking slippage in itself is no problem, if you can predict or measure it, but variability of slippage is the difficulty. To me, that spells grease. (On the grounds that a low coefficient of friction will be subject to less variance than a high one? You’re moving closer to having a perfectly smooth stone?).

If that’s right, you can have reliable and predictable control over all your variables, and it’ll work the same every time. (The slippage would obviously be very severe but you’d have the scope to allow for this by tilting the stone’s starting position so it builds up rotational speed.)

In reply to:
Re: Do we Eliminate Slippage or Live with it? (Steve Gray)

Replies:
Re: Or maybe we should maximise slippage? (nigelswift)

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge » Stone Shifting 2	Log In to post a reply

161 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded