New stone moving theory

close
more_vert
GordonP G
GordonP Apr 1, 2006 10:21:13
Replying to Steve Gray

Hi Steve

The fact that the timber required would have to be imported from Lebanon is a fact I am already aware of, but the cost of importing this timber (whatever method you choose to quantify that cost) would have been infinitesimal compared to the total cost of building the pyramid.

If a total lift of 100 feet is all that is required to cover the distance from the quarry (at a slope of 1 in 15) then just 10 lifting stations and ramps 10 feet high is all that is required to complete one line of ramps. With 13 men needed to operate each lifting station let us assume that each team built its own ramp. With 12 men at my disposal I believe I could construct such a lifting station and ramp in less than 30 days. Therefore 10 teams (130 men)could build 10 ramps in the same time, less than 30 days, completing one line. And 1300 men could complete 10 lines. Less than 30 days to complete the whole infrastructure, very little investment in time on a 20 year project.

Archaeologists should try dragging stones up ramps they would then soon realise that people are not machines, they become tired very quickly, perhaps they would then see things differently. I think some of the people who took part in the Foamhenge experiments were beginning to realise how quickly one can become knackered.

Building timber lifting stations up the sides of the pyramids would not have been a problem for people who could build wooden boats.

I know that mud is slippery.

The delivery rate of one block every two minutes during daylight hours is precisely the reason why some kind of infrastructure is necessary. Using brute force and weight of numbers is not enough.

Once the sledge and stone have left the lifting station (tipped over the edge) gravity will overcome the friction and the stone will arrive at the bottom of the ramp, subject to the slope of 1 in 15 being sufficient. This I will determine by trial and error.

Using the medium of TV to demonstrate this theory and many others I intend to show what is possible, I will leave it to the archaeologists to decide what was probable.

Keep your eye on Channel 5.

Best regards

Gordon

P PeterH
PeterH Apr 1, 2006 12:10:10
Replying to GordonP

Makes more sense to me than slippery Nile mud, Gordon. Not all pyramids are that close to the Nile. How you gonna keep the mud wet and slippery instead of drying out into concrete, Mr G?. Try dragging stone over dry mud/concrete and you'll learn something about friction. Unless you are going to work only in the winter or when the nile floods you are going to need to build sluices to bring water to wet the ramps. What materials will you use to bring the water to the ramps? Wood? - you have already said that there was a scarcity of that (not true of course). Gonna dig sand canals? Ever been to Egypt Mr G? Gets very very hot.

No way!

S Steve Gray
Steve Gray Apr 1, 2006 14:49:27
Replying to GordonP

The friction you have to overcome is exactly the same as dragging. To achieve a slope of 1 in 15 you have to get the coefficient of friction down to around 6%. If you can do that you could just lay your track flat on the ground and drag the stone along it. You would only need about 60kg of pull per ton of stone. That's just a couple of men.

The only difference with your method is that you are storing up energy by lifting the stone and then releasing that stored energy to overcome the friction. You have to create the same total energy in both cases. With dragging the energy is being put in directly and with your method it is being stored up and then released.

Have you tried this with a decent sized block of stone? I bet you'll need an angle much greater than 1 in 15 unless you can provide very effective lubrication. When I experimented with dragging a stone block on a sledge over fixed (dry) wooden sleepers, the coefficient of friction was not much less than 1. That would need a slope approaching 45 degrees.