Littlestone wrote:
Hi Littlestone,
Hmmmm....
From: “An assessment of the conservation risks and possible responses arising from antiquarian and archaeological investigations deep into the Hill” by Fachtna McAvoy, February 2005:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/Risk_assessment052005.pdf
5.3.1 The observations detailed above allow for a very, very approximate prediction of future collapse rates. If the collapse follows a log-rate process, as shown in Chart 1 below, then a period of 1000 years will be needed for a collapse of 0.5 x cavity diameter. Even if the collapse rate is linear (Chart 2), 300 years are required for a collapse of 1.0 x D.
So, that “very, very approximate” above puts the figure anywhere between the two outliers;
1.The log-rate process of 1,000 years which predicts a rate of migration that gets slower with time:
and
2. The linear-rate process (the worst-case scenario) which calculates out to 300 years.
That’s a mean of 650 years to achieve a collapse of 1.0 x of the Tunnel Diameter, apparently. This is nowhere near the Update 13 prediction of possible visible damage in:
“ a few decades time” and of “at least 1,000 cubic metres”
So we’ve come down from 300 - 1000 years to a “few decades” for damage to appear? In two years of accumulating knowledge? Despite trumpeting Tomography as the be-all-and-end-all?
In 2002, on behalf of the Silbury Hill Project Board, Professor Richard Chandler, - Professor of Geotechnical Engineering at Imperial College London – reported that:
…..“ It appears from the recent investigations …. that the general body of the Hill is otherwise stable”
http://www.english-heritage.or[...]ury_hill_commentary_report.pdf
…you’ll forgive me for being a little unsure as to who to believe in all this.
Peace
Pilgrim
X
Reply | with quote | Posted by Pilgrim 15th August 2007ce 02:34 |
Silbury's structural integrity (nigelswift, Aug 01, 2007, 07:56)- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (slumpystones, Aug 01, 2007, 17:13)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (whipangel, Aug 01, 2007, 19:16)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (tomwatts, Aug 06, 2007, 16:15)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (tomwatts, Aug 07, 2007, 11:49)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (Littlestone, Aug 08, 2007, 09:55)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (Littlestone, Aug 14, 2007, 21:06)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (Pilgrim, Aug 15, 2007, 02:34)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (moss, Aug 17, 2007, 11:45)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (Littlestone, Aug 21, 2007, 20:23)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (Littlestone, Sep 05, 2007, 20:20)
- Update 16 available.... (Pilgrim, Sep 05, 2007, 20:30)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (moss, Sep 12, 2007, 16:09)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (Littlestone, Sep 19, 2007, 13:00)
- Silbury's just fine, honest. (nigelswift, Dec 19, 2007, 16:03)
- Re: Silbury's just fine, honest. (Littlestone, Dec 19, 2007, 18:19)
- Well, when I say fine.... (nigelswift, Dec 20, 2007, 11:31)
- Re: Well, when I say fine.... (jimit, Dec 20, 2007, 13:23)
- Re: Well, when I say fine.... (ocifant, Dec 20, 2007, 14:14)
- Re: Well, when I say fine.... (Littlestone, Dec 20, 2007, 14:20)
- Re: Well, when I say fine.... (Littlestone, Dec 20, 2007, 21:54)
- Re: Well, when I say fine.... (moss, Dec 29, 2007, 13:59)
- Re: Well, when I say fine.... (nigelswift, Dec 29, 2007, 17:18)
- Re: Well, when I say fine.... (Littlestone, Dec 29, 2007, 20:12)
- Sell 'em on eBay! (Paulus, Dec 29, 2007, 21:06)
- Re: Well, when I say fine.... (StoneGloves, Dec 30, 2007, 06:08)
- Re: Well, when I say fine.... (Paulus, Dec 30, 2007, 19:27)
- Last glimpse inside ancient enigma (Littlestone, Jan 29, 2008, 17:36)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (Littlestone, Apr 07, 2008, 18:51)
- It seems to be finished... (moss, Apr 29, 2008, 06:17)
- Re: Silbury's structural integrity (scubi63, May 06, 2008, 11:17)
|
|