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 Forum Start a topic | Search
Stonehenge
Re: Ball bearings used to build Stonehenge
62 messages
Select a forum:
nigelswift wrote:

Not sure it's even that. Steve Gray, one of the Stonehengineers who used to post here, noted that the Egyptians poured water on sand to make mud to make a highly effective lubricant and he spent a very happy afternoon in a field using a spring scale and pulling a big stone over cowmuck. He reckoned that was more efficient than logs or anything else he could find.


Quite right nigelswift, but they are two extremes.
On a fairly flatish surface, then the cowmuck is great, as the thinner the "lubricant" the less the drag, but to a point. On a perfectly smooth surface ball bearings would be better than cowmuck, as would olive oil. In a field, ball bearings would be crap, but cowmuck would be better, and olive oil would be alright, but by the swimming pool full.
Also, the state of the gound that stones are being dragged over matters. If it's rock hard soil and grass after a frost, or a hot spell, then balls would be good, wooden of stone. If it's muddy, then the balls would become embedded.
Either way, wooden balls are unlikely, chalk ones too likely to fall victim to stress loading, so that leaves stone, which would be so time consuming to make. Mind you, the whole Stonehenge build was so time consuming.
The thought of them rolling wooden balls within specially cut channels in wooden rails beggars belief.
Regards,
TE.


Reply | with quote
The Eternal
Posted by The Eternal
19th November 2010ce
23:47

In reply to:

Re: Ball bearings used to build Stonehenge (nigelswift)

Messages in this topic:

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