> OK, well that is Franz Lohners calculations. He
> took into account days off. In saying that, he is
> not infallible.
He needs to take the workers off the ladders and put them in counterweights. It's just too dangerous using his method. It would also help if he put them on the opposite side of the pyramid and get rid of that "rope roll". Even a primitive pulley would be inappropriate for a 180 degree bend and his device would chew up ropes and be prone to catastrophic failure. Otherwise he has a far better idea and far better evidenced than "ramps".
> No matter what
> I propose, others will improve and find the faults
> in my designs as well. It just how things work.
You might be surprised. Few seem to care about anything but their own narrow view. Egyptologists already consider this settled science (we don't know exactly how it was done but it was savage and primitive in keeping with their "cultural context" and total lack of modern science and technology; besides it was ramps anyway).
> It's just a Ballpark estimate... In studying his
> proposal, I saw an issue. Open this link.
> Do you see his problem?
It's one of those little problems with design. It's hard to maintain a single perspective and do the math. In the real world it's the kindf of thing that can be easily corrected even if it requires twice as many men or twice as long to build. Just as I let variables cancel out some errors in logic cancel out in the real world. ie- his idea is still "feasible" but the specifics have significant inefficiencies and failures. "Ramps" are "feasible" as well since you could do it in theory but in their case it's the real world that destroys them. The real world requires men have room to work and overseers can over see the pyramid rather than piles of ramps. The real world makes dragging stones up mountains hard work no matter how many men and ramps you have. The real world dictates that if you build a pyramid with ramps you leave evidence you did it including a massive cemetery for all the workers who didn't make it. A tiny workers village and tiny cemetery prove they used a simple and efficient concept like Loehner's.
> Not to mention, you have to climb up to come back
> down. How many times a day do they do that? 1-2
> stones per minute?
At least their weight isn't being wasted coming back down.
Loehner could tweak his theory and get it close. He's been doing exactly this it appears and adding math which is all good even if he has a couple errors. I've always found his work insightful and even somewhat inspirational. The hard part of the job for his workers is just climbing the pyramid but at least they have ladders to climb and don't have to carry a 2 1/2 ton stone and a crew of slackers, rollers, and a sled with them as they climb.
In the real world math is irrelevant until you have something to which it can be properly applied. It's easy to calculate how many men and ramps it takes to build how tall a pyramid but calculations are meaningless if it's impossible to do or impossible to have been done. "Math" in this case is far more useful in reverse engineering than in design or execution. The real problem is that if one of these men stumble while "walking" down the side of the pyramid they might all die. This simply never happened. We imagine life was cheap and workers expendable because that's what we believe. But all the evidence argues against this being the case in those times. If modern man tried building one of these with brute force even with one of the more efficient means proposed the cemeteries would overflow all the way to the valley. Even using Ragano's method of pulling them from the step tops there would be 5 serious accidents per day and a fatality per week. With ramps there would be several fatalities per day and the workers with broken legs would find standing room only at the first aid stations.