The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian
Home Latest Posts Forums Maps Help
Browse Sites News Blog Contributors The Books
Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Stonehenge and its Environs Forum Start a topic | Search
Stonehenge and its Environs
Re: The bluestone debate
390 messages
Select a forum:
nigelswift wrote:
"You igore the fact that dragging a 12 ton stone is expotentially much simpler than dragging a 30 or 45 tonner."

I'm not ignoring it I'm saying it's essentially not true.


The use of the term "exponentially" certainly has no mathematical basis. The frictional forces are linearly proportional to the weight, so the force required to move the stone is similarly linear.

I suspect that Gordon is applying a subjective judgment, based on a reluctance to accept what was clearly evident to the rest of us at Foamhenge and this is that dragging was hugely more effective than stone-rowing.

My recollection of the accident at the Foamhenge project was that when Simon got stuck under the stone it was because he was feeding rollers under the front of the stone when he fell. The pullers continued to drag the stone along the grass for about 70% of its length before they were alerted to the problem.

A further thought, if you have enough "bods" you can use relay teams to give periodic rests.


Reply | with quote
Steve Gray
Posted by Steve Gray
18th November 2008ce
14:28

In reply to:

Re: The bluestone debate (nigelswift)

Messages in this topic:

Terms & Conditions  |  Home  |  Julian Cope presents Head Heritage Top of page