Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Steve Clayton Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Warwick Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 24 x 365 x 20 =175200
> > >
> > > Allowing that my Magazine proposal was
> > employed,
> > > and upgrading my estimate to 1,752,000...
> > >
> > > We get 10 an hour
> > >
> > > Obviously the higher we go the less haul
> teams
> > > would be needed
> > >
> > > In the first 5 to 10 years we could have been
> > > looking at far more an hour which
> exponentially
> > > accommodates slower rates as they got closer
> to
> > > the top
> > >
> > >
> > > The 10 per hour average has been voiced by
> > > countless researchers
> > >
> > >
> > > Feel free to question my estimates, they are
> > just
> > > that
> > >
> > >
> > > Warwick
> > >
> > >
> > > PS. Apply the same to 2 to 3 million
> > > Maybe go for more time
> > >
> > > The numbers are mind numbing but not the
> > > impossibility that so many Hobbyists like to
> > > promote
> > >
> > > Warwick
> >
> > Hi Warwick,
> >
> > OK, well I commend you for taking the time and
> > effort. I need to point out a few things,
> though
> > don't want to
> > upset you. I'm trying to be constructive.
> >
> > Time study is a structured process of directly
> > observing and measuring human work. This is the
> > area that requires much work. Together,
> hopefully
> > we can agree to some decent numbers. Working
> > backwards, we need to deliver a stone every 3
> > minutes. In the beginning, it would be easier
> to
> > meet that rate, as you don't need to travel as
> > far, as in later. That would comprise a large
> > amount of stones. Building a big ramp could
> take
> > up materials and manpower, if no other better
> > system was available and/or they lacked the
> > knowledge of. Where you will run into
> difficulty,
> > is proposing pulling "single" stones up and on
> > top, by any means. It would be better, if you
> had
> > more than one way up.
> >
> > Some questions? What size of a ramp do you
> > envision, and is it a spiral ramp.
> Additionally,
> > how wide do your propose this ramp to be.
>
>
> 1. I know exactly what a time study is.  what I
> offered was a brief extempore demonstration of my
> familiarity with all the challenges of the
> project
>
> 2.instead of thinking RAMP, think ramping. One
> ramp to do the whole thing is the most ridiculous
> of the ramp suggestions whereas Houdins is the
> most unnecessarily complicated.
>
> 3. The major ramp was, to my thinking that
> line/angle/striking that is the base of the Grand
> gallery.  from there internal inclines ( marl
> filled steps).
>
> 4. while I have years of study research and filers
> papers articles on the Pyramid age it has never
> been my intent to be he who solves the problem to
> everyone's satisfaction.
>
> 5.My intent is to attempt to isolate and
> understand the motivation behind building it and
> inspiring the work force
>
> food for thought:
>
> a.   the supplicants go to Lourdes the climb the
> steps on their knees, or crawl.
>
> b. every now and then thru time groups of humanity
> manage to be greater than the sum of their parts
>
>
> Warwick

Hi Warwick,

If your time study is based on the proverbial 1 stone every 3 minutes, which is the rate needed for a 20 year build cycle, then that condition limits many proposals.

What would help, is to determine how many men would be required, for a given angle, to pull a 2.5 ton stone from bottom to top. By establishing several angles, you can then acquire a percentage. That percentage could then be attributed to any ramp angle proposed. I have relied on Franz Löhner calculations, thou (unless I missed it) only provided the men needed for a level pull, and a pyramid face pull, using the men's weight. We don't really know, how many men would be required at any angle/degree of a ramp, be it the Pyramid face or Spiral ramps. Have you ever seen anyone pull a 2.5 ton stone up a ramp for say 100 feet, and know how long that would take?

[www.cheops-pyramide.ch]

Where as, the Funicular counter balance does contain accurate relationships of Incline Plains vs COF friction, and weight.  Two strange qualities, that I would have never guessed , is the fact that increasing the weight does not effect the COF. The fruition rate remains the same? The other quality being, as the weight moves down the incline, it increases in speed. It is not constant.

I believe the Funicular was used and existed for several reasons.

1st. The 10 year Causeway build, is not necessary to pull stones up from the Harbor. A hard packed dirt path, with wood slates, lubricated with water or grease, would accomplish the same task. If that was the only reason for the Causeway, they would have lost precious time, and cost more in food. It would be a pointless endeavor, in time and effort.
 
2nd. It replaces the majority of men need for the stone pull. 

3rd. The TV is full of individuals pointing to the miraculous AE, who drill holes in stones, and made saw cuts, polished stone to a high degree of accuracy, ect,ect...  Well, if they were that smart, then Funicular technology would be a snap. No problem. :)

4th. The time frame. As you and I are attempting to use Men, I suspect there is no senario to support them. If there was, it would have been revealed many years ago. Men have been trying to figure out, how those Pyramid were built, for many Centuries.