Steve Clayton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Hanslune,
>
> What numbers do you need? I have all of that.
> Cladking is only supporting my concept. He will
> not be able to supply that information. If you can
> define your area of math needed, I will supply
> those numbers to you, with supporting evidence.
> Just try and not be vague. The more specific you
> are, the better I will be able to assist you.
> Presently, I am working on pulling all that
> information together, in a comprehensive
> manner. I'm dedicated, and have self taught
> myself 3D animation, ie. Blender, C4D, Houdini and
> Unreal 5.0 engine. Mixamo custom characters... 
> It's difficult to learn, though fun once you
> have. The math I have accumulated over the
> years.
>
> It's kind of a shame, we refer to this method as a
> "Funicular". I brought that name into discussion
> here on the Graham Hancock website, as I had
> nothing else, which could represent the
> engineering principle. And additionally, provide
> video links emulating said principle.
>
> It is really just a Counter Balance. Not like
> Houdin's, which does not work, as it requires you
> to pull the stone weight back up, to serve as a
> counterweight. That is just plain stupid. The only
> reason (dare I say) the Funicular works, is that
> the Counter Balance weight (water) is continually
> being supplied from a higher level.  If you had
> to pull a vessel full of water back up,ie. Houdin,
> to serve as the counter weight, it would not make
> any sense at all...
>
> The minimum angle in my research is approx. 4.6
> degrees. More likely 5.0 degrees. You do not want
> the operation to find itself in a run away
> situation.  It would need to be managed, and not
> move, unless Men applying additional pressure,
> cause it to move. It is an assist, in lifting
> weight from a lower elevation to a higher
> elevation.
>  
> Fundamentally, it's just a tool. They AE could
> have used the principle, and then again maybe the
> pulled those stones up ramps, which I highly
> doubt. The math behind such an endeavor, does not
> support it, not does the evidence.

Howdy Steve

I support your effort. Cladking when he tried the numbers was ripped to pieces back in 2009-2011 at the Hall of Ma'at. He simply couldn't come up with any support

No geyser, and no place to get the line in that runs from the quarries to the pyramids and beyond.

Good luck