Stonehenge forum 180 room
Image by Howburn Digger
Stonehenge

Stone Shifting

close

This sounds very convincing to me...

http://www.stonehengetheanswer.com/

He certainly puts a good argument forward.

wow yeah sounds really simple doesn't it!!

.o0O0o.

Me too. I'd never thought of the problem of the corners of the pyramid.

Certainly!

I'm still a bit confused about how the blocks actually move though - what are they resting on? How do you get the levers underneath?

Thick Moth

Just caught up with this, this morning, PC problems have limited my access.

I like the idea of this, and am impressed by Gordon's research - get out and "do it" that's what I like to see.

A couple of points / queries though.

Maybe, I'm not reading it properly, but I don't really "get" the erecting the stone bit, I see the theory I think, but I'd like to see it work. I'm not sure about the 'crashing' the stone down, firstly it seems too imprecise (think I've just made that one up) too much margin for error especially whe you think that many stones are (or seem to be) very carefully angled towards points. Wouldn't there be a chance of major damage to the stone as it crashed down like that?

My main point though - and I am not trying to in any way to rubbish the theory, just need to clear things in my mind - is that Stonehenge apart, there are relatively few circles that are dressed stone. A rough faced, irregularly shaped stone would be much more difficult to control and navigate into the hole wouldn't it?

On the whole a good theory though, and best of luck with your continuing experiments (try an irregularly shaped one for me will you?)

moey

I've been following this thread, and think it's time to get to work.

Have I understood correctly that a test run with a 40 ton stone would cost around £1000 for materials, or would it be more than that?

It strikes me that £1000 isn't much for a company to sponsor the work, which would surely gather some media attention.

We are gonna need insurance etc for the big one, thats were the TV production company comes in. Although the process is perfectly safe, while we are just practising it shouldn't be a problem.

Would the ground conditions make a lot of difference?

If it was soggy? Or do you put support logs on the ground to give the levers something to act against?

There really should be more of this kind of thing.

Go for it, you loony style rock shifting types!

p.s. I'm trying to track down a local (Tyneside) standing stone that has been moved, If it gets found, I'd love to try and put it back by this method.

More confirmation:

“It was no more difficult to move the stone up the ramp than it had been to move it on level ground”

I’m sure most of us reading that would have found it hard to credit, especially as the slope was 1 in 8, but I can confirm that, on my small scale basis, I found you were exactly right.
Having thought about why it happens, I realize that I shouldn’t have been surprised. When you’re rowing 1 in 8 uphill, you could maintain precisely the same lever action as if you were on the level, except that the maximum forward travel of the stone will be restricted by 12.5% due to the front of it hitting the slope. Thus, you might get the impression that it’s actually marginally less effort per (shorter) stroke when going uphill. To counter this, all that is required is that everyone levers the stone a bit higher on each stroke, thus maintaining an unchanged forward travel per stroke. It’s clear that if you’ve got things arranged so that at each stroke everyone is levering the stone fairly comfortably, then they are hardly going to notice the extra effort in levering it a little higher during their stroke. Thus, they’ll be able to row up a hill at much the same speed as on the level.
I’m not sure what the limits of slope are – I guess you’d eventually be forced into limiting the forward travel per stroke, so it would be slower, and there would also come a point where the levers wouldn’t grip or the brake wouldn’t work, but I’m convinced that the limiting factor wouldn’t be exhaustion or numbers of people. If 20 people could move a stone along the flat, 20 people could move it up a steep hill. That’s more than can be said for all the other methods.

Your probably right Nigel. I'm not much good with pen and paper, I seem to work almost entirely by trial and error.

As regards the job of brakeman being dangerous, I'm quite prepared to try 40 tons on a slope of 1 in 8 single handed. The time lapse between it gathering enough momentum to reach me and my being able to escape would be plenty long enough. Anyway within a split second of it being released if the levermen were well practised it would be moving in the other direction. I have already done it with 4 ton and I know more about it now than I did then. In retrospect I think I'll try it with 10 tons first.

I was talking to a farmer a couple of years ago and he was most dismissive of the greased slipway idea. Being a farmer his first thought was "How many herds of cattle would they have had to render down to do it that way" It was an angle that had never occurred to me.

Steve, I think we may be talking at cross purposes, as I think what I said was right but I also agree with what you say. Not that the mechanics of the process matter, the point is we're all convinced Gordon can take a stone up a hill like a rat up a drainpipe and no-one else can!
Pardon my ignorance but who's Mr Otis?
Gordon, I can see your point about being the brakeman, and I suppose you'd be better at it than a mechanical brake, as that wouldn't kick in until the stone started slipping back, it's just the thought of you stumbling or coming over all funny at the crucial moment...

....