Trethevy Quoit in danger

close
more_vert
harestonesdown H
harestonesdown Mar 9, 2013 01:07:54
Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Do you have a link to JB's too Roy ?
Here it is Geoff. The numbers are mine so that the stones are easier to identify in the book
https://picasaweb.google.com/100525707086862773355/JohnBarnattsGroundPlan1982?authkey=Gv1sRgCKfWofPatMuS2wE#5853115179227568322
Thanks Roy.
In JB's plan your stone #6 is much longer than in Dymonds. Which one is correct ?
A quickie clue before I disappear...stone 6 is the identical width height and shape as stone 3. Also look at what is on the angled top of stone 6. That's all your having from me now...go look :-)
Hmmm, i can see a few possibilities but what strikes me most is the front blocking/supporting stone looks wrong. like it was added later and the capstone raised, i'm guessing your thinking something similar and stones 3,4,5 and six were supporting stones as they have the correct angles and maybe stone 6 tennons ? It's real hard not having seen the structure in the flesh.

H harestonesdown
harestonesdown Mar 9, 2013 02:59:40
Replying to harestonesdown

Playing around with the flankers and the capstones points of contact with them i guess it's pretty fair to say (and quite obvious imo) that it's gonna eventually slip off to the SW. Until you look closely you couldn't imagine the minimal contact it has with stone 4, basically the only thing keeping it from going. :O

http://oi50.tinypic.com/241s1mx.jpg

Other thoughts: If the fallen stone was supportive, and given it's height, that'd make it and the closure stone the only supports ?
I'm finding more questions than answers, but i'm not sure if what i'm coming up with is just pure bollocks because i'm looking so hard for something. :/

Btw Roy, do you consider the slope/angle on stone 4 significant ?