> Hi Corpuscles,
> Yes, I understand the implications. If I was
> running from it, I wouldn't have posted it.
> You put allot of effort into your post, and I
> commend you for that.
OK. I was not sure whether you had grasped the implications and Fabio was taking you into highly complex issues that would be irrelevant and possibly not really understandable, if you were maintaining hope in pulling stones up the face.
Again, I applaud the fact that you sought independent advice. That is a rarity on contentious issue here.
> >Q2. "Fabio, if I wanted to haul a (just one
> only) stone of 2.5 tons (5,000 lbs) up an incline
> of 4.6 degrees (CoF 0.08) via a pulling weight
> travelling down a 4.6 degree incline (CoF 0.08),
> but again disregarding fulcrum friction. Then how
> much weight must be placed on the down slope?"
> Fabio has yet to answer this, and wants to start
> stress calculations. I find that pointless, if my
> previous statements are incorrect in their current
> form. After all, it is research, is it not?
I recommend (particularly if you have already outlaid some hard earned funds) that you persist to get clarity and closure on this one issue. The result is not totally devastating to a causeway only pull but is impractical due to the very low acceleration value .0045 m/s/s achieved by the very slight incline even at extraordinary low CoF. You got a 'bum steer' (inappropriate information and endorsement) right from the start ... you know who!?
I am guessing, but an academic or professional consultant will honour the clients information requirements regardless of how silly or impractical they might consider the overall strategy. I think Fabio, assuming he had the basics of your overall concept, would have likely leaped ahead in his mind somewhat and saw the major complications of building a device strong enough to contain massive weight of water (stress) and need for baffling to avoid slosh and agitation. He started to get into complicated things like resonance issues etc.
> I just watched a movie called "Secrets of the
> Lost". Mark Lehner was in it. They uncovered
> sleeping quarters for 2,000 men. Towards the end,
> they attempt to move 1 stone up a slight incline
> of sand. Using 40 men, they failed and one of the
> two inch ropes broke. Using wood runners, and
> rollers, they managed to move the stone approx. ?
> 20 feet. Lehner then surmises Kufu used a ramp
> which is 1/3 up the Pyramid, and then the
> remaining ramps wrapped around the Pyramid until
> reaching the top. If I can get a picture, I will
> be able to estimate the volume of his proposal. It
> appeared to be near 1/2 of the Pyramid
> To me, that is to small of a labor force, to long
> of a haul for 40 men to accomplish. At that rate,
> there is no way they moved 2,300,000 stones up
> and into place. They continue to push this
> narrative, which doesn't add up. I am sure you
> will agree. If not, please show me how. A 20 year
> time frame is usually used.
For a long time I was totally against (critical) of stone hauling on sand. I still do not advocate the AE did it that way.
However, further food for thought, I came across some information concerning the relatively recent movement via actual experiment of massive Easter island statues. Over 200 tones was moved downhill successfully by using wooden rail track (moveable) in conjunction with wooden cross bearers. Yes also lubricated.
Giovanni Belzoni also managed to retrieve massive stone statue bust "The young Memnon" (now British Museum) via drag through sand on roller bearers method. So it is possible.
You ought recall Thanos5150 made comment to you recently that much of the stone came from Giza quarries ,local and closer than the harbour. If some form of ramp was used to modest height say 30-50 metres then ....IF SUCH EVER HAPPENED ?..... then I suggest multiple access points were used. Personally I am not totally convinced that there was not a smaller structure (s) previously built on the site and still reserve considerable doubt about a claimed circa 20 year total build time.
> I originally, moved water up the face of the
> Pyramid, by using only the weight of the man. A
> small shaduf style mechanism. A man stepping out,
> and being heavier, lifting the bucket of water
> higher. Even if they dipped and poured water in
> line, from one section higher into the next, it is
> more productive than trying to make the "stone
> puller" myth work. I will be happy to go over
> those numbers.
Yes. I read all that too. I also saw your claim of unsurmountable problems with using wooden cranes to raise stones. I was tempted to offer an alternative challenge there also,( ie possible solution) but did not have the time, nor belief that it would result in anything but protracted non fruitful argument.
On realising how engrossed you were and how much time you invested in this funicular thing I thought it is time for someone to offer some serious factual criticism. You were getting mere 'backslapping', 'off the cuff- ill considered or researched, endorsement by others claiming to have the knowledge but they did not provide facts.
> So where does this leave us? You are possibly OK
> with pulling stones. There is a Causway there,
> which by any measure, would be better than pulling
> stones around without it. If the rope which is
> pulling the stone up on the causway, made a 180
> pivot turn, and returned to an unspecified counter
> balance, wouldn't that be easier to pull, as the
> men are pulling downhill, than a group of men out
> on the sand, pulling the stone up hill?
> I hope I have answered your questions. Please
> respond in kind, and answer the above paragraph.
Yes. As I suggested in my initial reply to Barbelo herein this thread , that if transport from high water harbour to pyramid was required then a purposely levelled track being the foundation of causeway would be the likely logical ideal course. IMHO
Your question about pulling downhill also has some complications and requires mathematical examination. It depends on a lot of factors such as the friction loss on the pivot, and the bother with so much rope (maintaining it and manipulating it etc). My gut feel is the extra effort on such a slight incline would not justify the difference in hauling up the slope. If it were a very steep slope then definitely would be advantageous to reverse and go downhill. This is the basis of F Lohners rope roll concept of which you are somewhat familiar.
To give you some encouragement and offer something (again) out of left field (outside the box) to contemplate:
You might recall your drawing of the A frames you imagined in GG?
I think this was the basis of a very good idea. I have not developed it or drawn it because most of the stuff discussed at GHMB Mysteries is not dealt with seriously or necessarily by folks capable of comprehending past their own fantasies and confirmation biases. (I do not mean you in this statement)
The concept is a series/ long line of tree trunk size levers to act as a compounding jack or ratchet system, connected by ropes such that every alternate lever must move in the opposite alternating direction. This could provide very considerable compounding mechanical advantage for raising large stones eg the 50-80ton granite slabs of RC. I am NOT claiming they did it this way but might be interesting for you to ponder?
OK that is enough for me on the subject, unless you have further serious questions ?
Yes I sometimes do come here just to unwind "shoot the breeze" and sometimes my manner is aggressive as is much of the 'discussion' here. I apologise that you have been disturbed about that. However the only real reason I still bother with this forum is there are few generally serious posters whom I learn much from, mainly about ancient Egypt and exotic ancient places.
I hope our interchange has helped you learn at least something ...as well?