Date: May 27, 2018 10:58PM
> :-) So tell me Jon, how does one argue against
> speculation and wishful thinking, where is your
> evidence to be rebutted?
You don't argue against speculation and wishful thinking because that is exactly what it is, speculation and wishful thinking. There's no point in arguing against it. All you can do is ask for evidence.
If the speculation then evolves into an hypothesis then it remains an unproven hypothesis. If the hypothesis can then be proven to be workable and valid it would be down any opposition to prove why it is invalid.
I think that the funicular concept is still at the proving stage so there's little point in arguing against it. There's nothing to argue against, Yet.
I don't have all of the evidence, I too am waiting for the full evidence to be presented.
So I'll just have to be patient an wait for Steve.
The Mechanical Engineer I hired, has provided great insight. Even when we show it is mechanically possible from an engineering stand point, there will be nay-sayer's who say it doesn't work. The truth is, it doesn't work for them, for one reason or another. This engineer is capable of using engineering simulation programs, which will demonstrate how it "could have" worked. It will likely always remain a hypothesis. Just because, I am able to prove the science / mechanics, behind this hypothesis, doesn't mean it happened this way. It just means, it could have. For those who feel the need to vent their hostilities, need to take a chill pill. It's only a hypothesis.
Currently we are doing stress analysis of the barges on the causeway. We know the barges are big enough to float more than 60,000 lbs, of stones. I am building the barges in a CAD program, so he can run stress tests, ie. simulations. Because of the low 4.6 degree angle, it doesn't require a great amount of water, to act as a counter weight. You do not need 60,000 lbs. of water pull up 60,000 lbs of stones. No where near that amount.
We have already accomplished much. It will take time for me to organize all the different components, and attribute engineered calculations. We are trying to be as thorough as possible. Some individuals seem to have a problem conflating Funiculars, copper, and geysers together. The Funicular does not need a Geyser of any kind, and the "greased copper on copper, (cof .08), is but only one of many possible materials. There are charts showing Oak on Oak as being .07 cof.
The AE did not have Oak, thou they did have Ebony.
Thank you for your support. I will press on...