Date: January 08, 2017 12:27AM
Steve Clayton Wrote:
> Also, FYI it was Egyptologists who uncovered the
It's one thing to know there was a "mafdet lynx" and something entirely different to know you just found the passage leading straight to it. By the same token it's one thing to find a flooded cemetery and something entirely different to know that the flooding of a cemetery is actually mentioned in the only writing that survives; the Pyramid Texts which they mistake for incantation.
298a. then will he impart heat to his eye, which will surround you,
298b. and will let go a tempest on those who did wrong,
298c. and will let loose an inundation over the Ancients;
>> OK, then explain to me how 4" annually caused all
>> the erosion around the Sphinx.
>I don't know. Nothing is more massive than what I don't know.
>Perhaps the same thing caused to erosion as what flooded the workers village at least four times; loss of containment in the "integrated apron"/pavement/ssm.t-apron. There was a lot of water and it obviously escaped numerous times.
Oh clad...you just finished telling me in a previous post it rained only 4" per year. Additionally, that they did not "harvest" water.
>loss of containment in the "integrated apron"/pavement/ssm.t-apron. There was a lot of water and it obviously escaped numerous times.
Water which has escaped, is harvesting. FYI, 4" of water per year would simply evaporate. Wiggle out of that one! And please, don't tell me it "magically appeared".
Concede the point. There was more water than you lead us to believe.
>> ...my estimates of 3 cubic feet of water goes
>> up significantly.
>You can estimate and design all you want but the fact is that lifting water isn't that much easier than lifting stone. What's needed is a way to save human effort and to make the human effort required within the capabilities of planning, design, and execution.
In all of my designs, people are using "simple machines" which give you a mechanical advantage. Do you understand what (6) simple machines are, and what a mechanical advantage is? Lifting 5,000+ lb. stones is not realistic, especially if you choose stinky footed brutes, to do the lift. Example: When you use a wood file, it takes many small cuts, to finish the part. You don't take one swipe at it. That's how lifting water is like, vs. just one massive swipe.
>> There are 20 steps at this build stage, requiring
>> 20 lifts. You would have us believe, that 20-25
>> men can pull a 5,000lb stone up a ? ramp, in under
>> 3 minutes.
>What I would have you believe is that total work expended is weight times height times the reciprocal of the efficiency. What I would have you believe is that no amount of genius or pencil whipping will have any effect on this equation. Mother nature keeps her own accounting and doesn't care about engineers or misapplied equations and bad math.
>total work expended is weight times height times the reciprocal of the efficiency.
Excuse me...What the hell was all this gobbledygook, ie. >total work expended is weight times height times the reciprocal of the efficiency. All work can be effected differently, depending on the use of one or more "simple machines". There is no "single" Mother nature rule that is being accounted for. There are multitudes of them. Please educate yourself.
A simple machine uses a single applied force to do work against a single load force. Ignoring friction losses, the work done on the load is equal to the work done by the applied force. The machine can increase the amount of the output force, at the cost of a proportional decrease in the distance moved by the load. The ratio of the output to the applied force is called the mechanical advantage.
Simple machines can be regarded as the elementary "building blocks" of which all more complicated machines (sometimes called "compound machines") are composed. For example, wheels, levers, and pulleys are all used in the mechanism of a bicycle. The mechanical advantage of a compound machine is just the product of the mechanical advantages of the simple machines of which it is composed.
Also clad, how about some references when you make your claims. Do you see how I have done this above & bellow? You show me where this statement is listed anywhere in Physics.>total work expended is weight times height times the reciprocal of the efficiency.