nigelswift
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 11:49
|
|
Right.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 15:46
|
|
GordonP wrote: 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.
Steve Gray (earlier in this thread) wrote: ...you have invested so much time and effort in trying to prove the viability of your stone-rowing idea.
You see, I DO acknowledge your effort. Although you may perceive it to be so, my agenda here is not a personal vendetta. I'm just not willing to sit quietly by while you continue to push stone-rowing as THE answer to moving large stones.
I'm not even particularly presenting dragging as THE answer either, though I think it's a strong candidate. I'm only using it as a comparison because we had a clear demonstration of both methods under near identical conditions.
The stone-rowing horse died at Foamhenge and no amount of flogging will make it any more or less dead.
|
tonyh
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 18:07
|
|
GordonP wrote: 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?
Gordon..
What's the height of your 'lift'
I can see dragging to be efficient across smooth grass areas.. But is that the terrain they encountered? Very unlikely I would have thought. It is very possible the slow and steady is better than fast to nowhere..
Tony
|
GordonP
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 18:25
|
Stone-rowing is alive and well thank you very much, as are some of my other innovations, like providing the lever operators with a working platforms that rises in line with the stone when using a crib to elevate a lintel stone. And rowing the raised lintel into position using working platforms.
Using the support logs to provide shoring when levering up a stone from horizontal to vertical. Intial experiment successfully tested last year in America where I was warmly welcomed and entertained for 14 days all expences paid.
Only this week did I receive mail from a Russian Archaeologist asking permission to quote from my old website in a book he is writing.
Without abandoning stone-rowing I am at the same time hoping to test a new method of transport I have devised. Needless to say it won't involve brute force.
I could go on but you'll only ignore what I have to say.
|
tonyh
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 18:42
|
Gordon..
What's the height of your 'lift'
I can see dragging to be efficient across smooth grass areas.. But is that the terrain they encountered? Very unlikely I would have thought. It is very possible the slow and steady is better than fast to nowhere..
Tony
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 19:02
|
|
GordonP wrote: Using the support logs to provide shoring when levering up a stone from horizontal to vertical. Intial experiment successfully tested last year in America where I was warmly welcomed and entertained for 14 days all expences paid.
Some, if not most of your ideas are nothing more than elaborations of established techniques for raising and moving heavy objects. I was using such techniques as cribs, and progressive levering in building long before I even met you.
As for the idea quoted above, if you're talking about the method I think you are it's one that you got from me in the first place. I'd thought about it many years ago in relation to raising Egyptian obelisks and I remember discussing it with you and drawing up diagrams of how it would work.
|
GordonP
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 19:16
|
|
Your memory differs from mine.
|
tonyh
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 19:22
|
LOL..
Your the bloke that needs 50 farmers and 100 Oxen to move a four ton stone..
That's a hell of a lot of rope..
Where on earth are they going to get that from..
Tony
|
GordonP
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 19:31
|
Hi Tony
The height of the lift during stone-rowing at present is about 1 or 2 inches, but if the situation called for it I could probably think of something.
You might like to take a quick look at my website just enter gordon pipes in google, ignore any reference to Scottish Pipes bands and you'll be OK.
Due to inferences by some people I am reluctant to use my domain name, which is www.stonehengetheanswer.com This originally should have read www.stonehengetheanswer?.com but at the time having been persuaded by a friend to put my ideas onto the internet and never having used a computor at all for sixty years of my life I was not sure if a question mark was ok in a domain name, so I left it out. Big mistake.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: The bluestone debate
Nov 20, 2008, 19:39
|
|
tonyh wrote: LOL..
Your the bloke that needs 50 farmers and 100 Oxen to move a four ton stone..
That's a hell of a lot of rope..
Where on earth are they going to get that from..
Tony
WTF!
misconscrewing again?
In relation to the oxen I was talking about a 40 ton sarsen, not a 4 ton stone.
And what does rope have to do with anything I said in the post you responded to?
|
