> Hello Scott,
> It is a demonstrable fact that your Antechamber hypothesis
> simply does not work.
I am not comfortably familiar with how large blocks, levers, counterweights etc such as those involved in the portcullis operate,so I was both fascinated and intrigued by Scott's theory. I can't get my head round it, even with his animated diagram.
Thankfully, you have stated that it is a demonstrable fact that it simply does not work.
For those of us not too au fait with the physics of raising and lowering large stones in a confined space, could you now make clear (in writing if that is possible - I appreciate it may require a diagram) that the hypothesis does not work by demonstrating it as a fact? You know, rather than just stating it?
I await your reply with much interest. How exactly does it not work?
""It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair