> Steve Clayton wrote:
> > Reaching the top work surface of the Pyramid, is no different
> > than reaching the base, where the mortuary temple is. They
> > require enough power to pull weight along an incline
> > The Causeway incline is approx. 4.6 degrees, and the Pyramids
> > incline surface is approx. 62 degrees. It makes no difference
> > to the system, as long as, it has sufficient (water weight)
> > power to overcome both inclines and the (stones) weights
> > involved. For me this concept is easy. Maybe for others it is
> > not. The Funicular system will overcome a 90 degree angle,
> > straight up into the air. As long as the Counterbalance
> > Funicular System has sufficient water weight, it doesn't care
> > if there is 4.6, 58, 62, or 90 degree angle. It will overcome
> > them all. It is only limited by the size of the vessel
> > the water, the causeway strength to endure the weight, and
> > strength of the ropes. Gravity does the rest.
> I've long tried to come up with a means to use mechanical
> advantage to lift stones to greater height. ie- use ten tons
> of water to lift a five ton stone twice as high. There doesn't
> seem to be a means within their capabilities to do this on the
> pyramid. There are ways to do it through "intermediaries" but
> these all result in significant efficiency loss. Chris Jordan
> used to have some good ideas along these lines but none seemed
> wholly plausible for their technology. Of course Kunkel had
> great ideas but there is the problem with evidence in this
> I believe this is important if they had a limited amount of
> water at 81' 3". Perhaps Steven Myers is right that they had
> ample water and then it wouldn't matter.
> I believe identifying the water source is absolutely criticalk
> to getting a fast solution to how they built and where exactly
> funiculars operated. I would start at the most obvious place
> where water is strill percolating up today and has created a
> ben ben sitting on a tiny primeval mound in the walls of the
> Sphinx Temple. I hope they just don't destroy it.
Let's take each of your statements, one at a time. If after I explain, you still don't grasp the answer, let me know and I will clarify it until you do. You do need to play a part, and inform me...OK
1. "a means to use mechanical advantage to lift stones to greater height. ie- use ten tons of water to lift a five ton stone twice as high. There doesn't
seem to be a means within their capabilities to do this on the pyramid."
Do you understand the advantage of an incline plain? It is a way of lifting a load that would be too heavy to lift straight up. That is why men move items up a ramp, and into the back of a truck. Stop thinking about a straight up lift. It is too much work, and not required. It's like pulling stones around in the dirt. Totally unnecessary.
2. I don't know Chris Jordan or Kunkel great ideas. I doubt very much any of them had anything to do with Funicular technology. To place stones up and on the Pyramids, you only need to understand a Funicular incline counter balance system. The person to read is Franz Löhner and his rope role.
Franz has many things correct. He just didn't understand or conceive of a Funicular system. He has men still doing all the labor, when harvesting rainfall and employing it into a Funicular system, is all that was required.
Ask me a specific question, where and what you don't understand, and I will elaborate with drawing(s) and math to back it up. One thing nice about engineering principles, is they are difficult to argue against, when they are correct. In the real world, 2+2 still = 4.
Post Edited (31-Jan-15 00:54)