> This can be said of any scale. Counterbalance and
> counterweight are both contained within the
> Funicular system. On the Pyramid, you have no such
> luxury, unless you are able to raise water to a
> higher elevation, and then apply it to your
It requires far more work to be done to get water to the top of the plateau (horizon/ pavement/ ssm.t) than it does to get water to 81' 3" (heaven/ upper eye of horus/ step top). We know beyond doubt there was water at the top of the plateau but we don't know how it got there. We don't know if humans did the work or natural processes (gods). But SOMEONE OR SOMETHING had to have expended a lot of "effort" to lift this water. It required 1800 ft lbs for every gallon that got to the top. There are a very limited number of ways nature is known to create the condition of water being at such altitude. There are events (like rain) that can provide water but in order to spend 30 years in construction it could only have been a condition, a natural process. If it were such a process it stands to reason the builders not only utilized it (them) but strove to understand it.
Yes, your system of rain gathering could work in theory if they had massive amounts of storage and extensive earthworks. These are not in evidence and rain is too sporadic even in the great pyramid building age to depend on it. Perhaps you could find a nearby lake that could have been channeled and this would leave far less evidence. But none of this matters; they did have water. I merely propose that the water came in at 81' 3" from a carbonated aquifer (that still exists under Giza in all probability) that was harnessed.
Keep in mind that no matter how absurd it sounds that they STILL HAD WATER and this water required much more work to get on the plateau than was required to get it another 80'. Keep in mind that the cliff face provides far more lift than ANY WATER AT 80'. We can see the ramps and other evidence that the cliff faces were used to drag stones.
> So, raising the water is not a good option
> either. It too, would consume to much wood and
They would not have raised water manually unless they used shadufs in the grand gallery. Generally it's harder to raise water than it is to raise stones. Of course this depends on the nature of their power source and the specific processes used to build the pyramid.
> I am redoing the Funicular, as it evolved, and
> became simpler. The concept of many barges, in
> tandem on the Causeway, greatly simplified
> matters. Shorter lengths of ropes. Barges get to
> come to rest. Allows men to return to work in the
> morning, where they left off. Water would be able
> to refill the reservoir overnight. Much less
> weight & stones per barge.
Simple is good.
It is absolutely necessary that men have room to work and a sufficiently comfortable job to not die of heat stroke. If ten men can do a job you must employ about 30 to spell them and give them time off. Just like a modern plant uses four men for each job they'd need an absolute minimum of three. If they had any hard jobs (there was only one I can find) I'd wager they employed five men for each task since working in desert heat is very taxing.
If a task required 100 men you'd need 500 to cover it and 125 men at a time. Struggling, stumbling, and straining are NOT conducive to production as we imagine. Superstition does not provide capability. Our conception of pyramid building couldn't be more wrong.
> Even my math has to be in balance, of a realistic
> statement. I am working on it...
Math is great but is often misapplied to reality. Math says that if there only way to build pyramid is ramps then they used ramps. Math won't provide water or produce more work than the equations of physics calculate.