Author: Jon Ellison ()
Date: January 15, 2017 02:09AM
Hi Steve.
I see what youre saying about a very shallow lake of water used as a leveling device, say only an inch deep or so .
In fact the entire course surface wouln't need to be covered in water.
Islands would form in the high spots which would remain dry allowing them to be worked upon, the work eventually reducing the dry islands down to the shallow water level.
A quantity of water could then be released further exposing the 'high spot' islands which are again dry worked down. The process is repeated over and over until eventually there are no large islands and of course no water. In other words a flatish surface consisting of numerous very small dry islands and small very shallow pools.
Imagine a parking lot after rainfall, small, very shallow puddles all over the place. Good enough???

Anyway this would negate the problem of working in dirty opaque water, and would ensure minimum material removal and therefore effort in order to achieve acceptable flatness. No measuring equipment or projection equipment required.
Obviously this would only work on a horizontal reasonably flat surface.
Actually I'm surprised that Lehner even considered level reduction work going on underwater.



Hi Jon, Audrey & Phil,

Since we are only dealing with a very 1-2" shallow pool, in many quadrant, the dust/mud may work to their favor. That murky pool which becomes mud, drys hard. It's a matter of just how murky, how muddy, and how hard.

Experience: I built some steps leading up to my house. I knew where there was some free slate. I just took the dirt, and utterly shaped out the steps. I let it dry and it was hard enough as a base to walk on. I then just cast a thin layer on cement and placed the slate down. After 30 years those steps are still there. A few has come loss, though that is to be expected, as tree roots grow underneath. That mud was free, I was able to troll and shape it. This wasn't garden variety dirt. Mankind has made mud houses for thousands of years.

Otherwise, I just don't see how they could have effectively achieved the task.

This seems to be heading towards the discussion, is the Pyramid core made of blocks or rumble. I understand the sand being found, though was it lose or mixed with a binder? Building on uneven boulders and rubble seems precarious. It could lead to a landslide and destruction, when compared too carefully placed blocks . I am sure you can understand, I am hoping to conclude a sealed surface, as that enables a surface for water collection. Water collection they could have used for lifting blocks. It's free, occasionally. There is plenty of water erosion around the Sphinx. It sounds a bit crazy, to shaduf water up the face of the Pyramid, though it works and they could have accomplished the build without rainfall. I just wanted to point out that if the casing stones are set first, the total surface area can hold enough water weight, to lift nearly all the blocks needed. A free counter balance element. I have done the math. I feel that is surprising, and worthy of mentioning. The rainy season in Egypt, starts in March.

You can tell, I would have made a good boss, as I am always looking out for the small guy. I am working today, to prove using math, than no Earth made ramp(s) are capable of containing enough men pulling stones, to be able to build any Pyramid in 20 years.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15-Jan-17 13:41 by Steve Clayton.