close
more_vert

Sanctuary wrote:
Re the engineer, yes a good idea, but I don't have or know any friendly ones. It was pointed out to me that EH engineers are highly skilled, far more than your bog standard engineer
Well, more used to dealing with megaliths anyway. But it's all maths, innit - loadings, angles and coefficients of friction - there's a clear and certain answer as to whether it is currently dangerous I'd have thought. There are relevant academic departments in Exeter and Falmouth who might like to be asked for their opinion just as a fun exercise, not to tread on the toes of their colleague.

But I'm fascinated by the idea of artificially constructed tenons and mortises. They might look like that because a nobble tends to settle into a hollow, but were they deliberately constructed? Would such a thing be necessary if the structure was intended to be buried? It's a fact that a capstone resting on three points (not 4) is extremely stable, would further engineering specifications be needed?

nigelswift wrote:
[
But I'm fascinated by the idea of artificially constructed tenons and mortises. They might look like that because a nobble tends to settle into a hollow, but were they deliberately constructed? Would such a thing be necessary if the structure was intended to be buried? It's a fact that a capstone resting on three points (not 4) is extremely stable, would further engineering specifications be needed?
Well it was you that mentioned mortise and tenons Nigel not me, I just showed you a photograph of an angled upright with 'knobbles on it! But I have got another that will interest you but you're seeing that one yet :-)
With regard to it being buried, I take it you mean under a mound? If so, where is the proof for that at Trethevy? I see a banked area at the base securing the stones but that's all. It was 'open for business' for centuries (it would seem) so the structure didn't need covering to keep it structurally sound during that time. If you read all the accounts of Trethevy you will find that they all suppose that the capstone was raised much higher than it is now at the rear and the original backstone lies prostrate inside the chamber. If that's true, how would you stop the ingress of cairn material into the open chamber if it was totally covered? Maybe it wasn't a backstone at all. Again we have taken it as read because our peers say it was. We are allowed to challenge them and that's what I've done and ofered evidence for and shown the obvious alternatives.