> 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 like pulling stones around in the
> dirt. Totally unnecessary.
An inclined plane can allow you to move heavy weights upward but I want any means at all within the capabilities and physical evidence of the builders to lift a weight to a greater distance than the force applied. For instance on equal angle ramps like a funicular 100 tons of water lifts 100 tons of stone. The counterweight falls 10 and the load is lifted 10'. If you use a steeper gradient for the counterweight than the load then the counterweight might fall any given distance but no matter what the gradient of the load it moves the same distance as the counterweight.
I'm looking for a simple means to drop a ten ton counterweight from any given height (preferably 81' 3") to lift a five ton stone to double that height. This would solve some of the difficulties in building between 250' and 400' and make finishing operations vastly more efficient. I don't think they actually did this but they would have tried. They would have spought a solution.
In a sense I believe they did do it. I believe they had a retention pond at ~405' which they filled much like they lifted the stones. This water was then used to lift individual stones much greater distances than their normal 81' 3". Every means I can think of other than this is either unevidenced or beyond their technology and capabilities.
The first part of the finishing operations was to build a perfect 75' tall pyramid on top of the step pyramid. They overcame the problem with rope joints not being able to pass over pulleys (dm-sceptres) by simply greatly reducing the total load to single 2 1/2 and 2 ton stones. It was hard on the ropes but it was easier to make more ropes than to lift each stone six times. They used several such cheats to reduce the average number of times each stone was lifted to a little more than twice. If there were a simpler or more direct method they might have been able to reduce this even further. People ddon't realize just the work involved lashing 2 1/4 million stones together two times to get them up the pyramid was a big job for their little economy. Forget dragging the stones when just hooking them up with ropes was onerous. They needed dozens of men just to drag ropes and proto pulleys back down to the quarry and to stage them at the funiculars.
> 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.
Chris Jordan invented (or discovered) something he called a babylonian pump that use the weight of water to lift water. Kunkel did the exact same thing with a type of pump that uses water's own weight to lift it; a ram pump. Jordan's method is viable but Kunkel's would require a large amount of water and a large drain in the subterranian chamber and neither seem to have existed. There are many ways it could be done but I need it for use on the pyramid during finishing operations. Ideally it would have left some evidence like the high density region at 400'.
> 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.
He is ahead of his time.
I think he's convinced a lot of people about the absurdity of ramps.
> In the real world, 2+2 still = 4.
I have to beg to differ. Quantified logic is never fully applicable to the real world. ;)
This is why I round off funny and the ancients just threw out 1/ 64th. Math is especially pointless when you have almost no evidence at all.