Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Construction Technique for the Great Pyramid (stone lifting)

  1. #1 Construction Technique for the Great Pyramid (stone lifting) 
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    I was looking through a book about the standing stone megaliths of Great Britain, when I saw a picture of a group of guys trying to lift a particular megalith with a lever system. I started to wonder, why do they pull down so hard, when they can ultimately only lift their weight in stone because the lever will cause the men fall back once the stone lifts too high on the other end.

    This got me thinking about the pyramids.

    I was going to have this post shaped up nice and bright, but I don't have time for to do those sort of things any more. Here it is then, plain and simple.

    I think the easiest and most efficient method for lifting stones onto the pyramid would be to tie ropes around the stone at the bottom of the pyramid, run them up to the top of the other end, and then tie the rope/ropes around multitudes of people, who would essentially just use their own weight to pull the stone from the other end. Any number of methods could be employed to ease the movement of the stone up the pyramid.



    The average weight of each stone is roughly 2.5 tons, which translates into 5000 lbs. At about 200 lbs. per man, that means that it would take only 25 people to equal the weight of the average block. Throw in a bunch extra, say 200 more, and you could easily have enough to counter the weight of the block and lift it just by the weight of the people tied to the other end. I'm wondering if there is anyone who would want to figure out just how much extra weight would be required to overcome the frictional forces of the moving stone and its initial inertia. I'm no physicist, nor an engineer, so I have little in the way to offer any puzzle like this, other than to throw out this slightly baked idea.




    Regards,
    Rv. Jon


    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 I'm a scientist - I'll do it, Jon 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1
    First, I shall convert all your measurements to the language of physics - metric.

    I'll let the mass of the block be 2300kg. I shall also assume an Egyptian is 60kg in mass (they didn't eat enough to be 200lbs). Assuming an incline of 51<sup>o</sup> on both sides. Let's give gravity the value of 10ms<sup>-2</sup> just to be easy.

    The tension in the rope just holding that block will be:

    T=2300kg x 10ms<sup>-2</sup> x sin51<sup>o</sup>
    T=18000N (rounded up to err on the side of caution)

    And the force the pyramid exerts to hold up the block will be:
    F<sub>N</sub>=2300kg x 10ms<sup>-2</sup> x cos51<sup>o</sup>
    F<sub>N</sub>=14500N (approx.)

    If I assume that the coefficient of kinetic friction (μ<sub>k</sub>) is 0.3 (they're using boards or something under the blocks, ok), then the force required to keep the blocks moving up the gradient is:

    f<sub>k</sub>=μ<sub>k</sub> x F<sub>N</sub>
    f<sub>k</sub>=0.3 x 14500N = 4400N

    The same trig I used to work out the tension in the rope could be applied to the 'falling' workers (mass of workers = m<sub>w</sub>) pulling the block. So,

    T=m<sub>w</sub> x 10ms<sup>-2</sup> x sin51<sup>o</sup>

    We know we need a combined tension of 18000N (to hold the block) + 4400N (to keep it moving up). So,

    T=22400N=m<sub>w</sub> x 10ms<sup>-2</sup> x sin51<sup>o</sup>
    m<sub>w</sub> = 22400N /(10ms<sup>-2</sup> x sin51<sup>o</sup>)
    m<sub>w</sub> = 2900kg

    Remember that an Egyptian is 60kg, so that equates to 49 people. And that's just if the people are 'falling' rather than actively pulling on the rope.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Thank you so very much for your hard work, Doddy. I very much appreciate what you've done to help me out with this.

    Thank you greatly!
    Jon
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    You know pyramids weren't built as continuous slopes, do you? They where built as tight-pitched step pyramids, then the stony steps were filled in to form a slope, then it was coated with plaques of white limestone which where polished in place.

    The problem of puting in place the blocks still would be the same while building the step pyramid...
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    You know pyramids weren't built as continuous slopes, do you? They where built as tight-pitched step pyramids, then the stony steps were filled in to form a slope, then it was coated with plaques of white limestone which where polished in place.

    The problem of puting in place the blocks still would be the same while building the step pyramid...
    There are two ways to look at this:

    1) What you have said is the commonly-held belief about how the pyramids were constructed, and is somehow incorrect, as it is also possible that the pyramids' finishing layers could be applied during its upward construction as part of each level, instead of being put on like a casing.

    2) Wooden beams could be used to slide the stones over the jagged steps.


    Personally, I'm somewhat fond of (1), since it makes more sense in all ways. See, why build the pyramid all the way, climbing each level as you go, and then come back and redo it all again on the outside. That's how framed construction is done, but I'd argue that it's an entire different story for stack-and-pile construction, and that the Egyptians probably saw the casing as so essential that it was not a ‘finishing touch’ but rather a core part of the pyramid's construction.




    Regards,
    Rv. Jon
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    You know pyramids weren't built as continuous slopes, do you? They where built as tight-pitched step pyramids, then the stony steps were filled in to form a slope, then it was coated with plaques of white limestone which where polished in place.

    The problem of puting in place the blocks still would be the same while building the step pyramid...
    There are two ways to look at this:

    1) What you have said is the commonly-held belief about how the pyramids were constructed, and is somehow incorrect, as it is also possible that the pyramids' finishing layers could be applied during its upward construction as part of each level, instead of being put on like a casing.

    2) Wooden beams could be used to slide the stones over the jagged steps.


    Personally, I'm somewhat fond of (1), since it makes more sense in all ways. See, why build the pyramid all the way, climbing each level as you go, and then come back and redo it all again on the outside. That's how framed construction is done, but I'd argue that it's an entire different story for stack-and-pile construction, and that the Egyptians probably saw the casing as so essential that it was not a ‘finishing touch’ but rather a core part of the pyramid's construction.




    Regards,
    Rv. Jon
    As per 1), I never said they bult the whole pyramid first and coated it later. The point was that the slope was made of limestone, which is not the sort of stuff they (nor anyone else) would use to drag anything on it. Limestone is too soft and frangible to be used that way.

    And as for dragging things up a 51º slope... I'm not physicist, but I can tell you that the horizontal vector is going to be really big, they will be pushing the block against the slope as they try to lift it. This additional friction will be larger than if they just stand on top of the construction.

    Also should be considered the length of the ropes...
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    There is currently a special running on the National Geographic channel regarding the construction method of the Great Pyramid. The architect Jean-Pierre Houdin came up with a theory regarding the purpose of the Grand Gallery. Surprisingly, his theory employs the notion of counterweight, with the Grand Gallery acting as a sort of 'ditch' in which a counterweight could be lowered to raise stones from the other side. Interestingly enough, the most likely stones to have been raised opposite the Grand Gallery are the ceiling stones of the King's Chamberthe heaviest stones in the pyramid, aprx. 45 tons each.

    The rest of his theorythe use of internal ramps to raise the regular stonesis of no interest to mine, aside from the fact that he has proposed it in the first place in spite the intellectual marvelousness of the theory regarding counterweights and the Grand Gallery. Here is a link to a website with a pretty decent summary of Houdin's theory. Particularly:
    "Jean-Pierre Houdin has his own insight of a more practical solution to the riddle of how the pyramids were built. He suggests that a ramp was used but that it was an internal ramp and that the Grand Gallery was used to move counter weights to raise the nine granite beams for the Kings chamber ceiling. Houdin worked with Dassault Systmes to test his hypotheses and to demonstrate the validity of the theory with the aid of their scientific 3D technology. He now plans to prove his claims by scanning the pyramid with radars and heat detecting cameras."
    The blog there is from 10 April of this same year. Houdin's book, however, was published in 2006, so it is surprising that were the internal-ramp portion of his theory of any validity there would not be more research by now to back it up. The counterweight portion, on the other hand, may be the less prominent of his theories, but, as I see it, far more likely to be true.

    I have some problems with Houdin's theory, of course, specifically that he proposes a cart filled with blocks as the counterweight. I think the idea of human counterweights to be more probable. Nevertheless, the similarities of the two theories, alongside Doddy's wonderful calculations, really makes for a great case for the notion of counterweight construction of the Great Pyramid of Egypt.

    Regards,
    Rv. Jon
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1
    debating on science discussions is a very good way,by which we come to know about every positive and negative aspects of it i would like to know about it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------
    nicklose
    foreclosures
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucifer
    The point was that the slope was made of limestone, which is not the sort of stuff they (nor anyone else) would use to drag anything on it. Limestone is too soft and frangible to be used that way.
    Limestones are very varied in their structure and hardness. The limestones on the Giza plateau, quarried for the core of the Giza pyramids, have compressive strengths in the range of 80 - 180 N/mm. This is hard. The Tura limestone used for the casing rock is said to be generally harder.
    If they hadn't been so hard they wouldn't have been ripped off a couple of thousand years later to build old Cairo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Limestones... compressive strength
    Well, yeah surface hardness is kinda irrelevent to compressive strength, where the material is packed into a pocket like a pyramid step. Damp sand would do fine. Drape some mats over that for less friction.

    One problem I see with great lengths of rope, is the rope weight is going to be quite a drag itself. I know the builders had hemp rope, which is good, but still.

    How's this?





    I really doubt it was done, but the "best way" to build pyramids IMHO is by incremental flooding. Select a valley and cut canal to it. Do this while the Nile is flooded and all the farmers are idle anyway. Quarry from a higher elevation than the particular step you're adding onto, which will be one block height plus the draft of a laden boat deep. After sliding all one level's blocks into place, raise the water level for the next step, and so on.

    That method would be obvious to anybody working around tides or seasonally flooding rivers. It is how they built dikes and dams. But I don't believe it was employed for pyramids. We'd find fossils of flattened crabs and such between the stones.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Well, yeah surface hardness is kinda irrelevent to compressive strength, where the material is packed into a pocket like a pyramid step.
    I am not entirely sure what you are saying here. Surface hardness is intimately tied to compressive strength. It is a function of grain hardness, shape, size and cementation. These are the same factors that control compressive strength. Perhaps you meant it is not relevant to the construction of the pyramid, rather than it is not relevant to compressive strength. If you meant the former I see your point and agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I really doubt it was done, but the "best way" to build pyramids IMHO is by incremental flooding. Select a valley and cut canal to it. Do this while the Nile is flooded and all the farmers are idle anyway. Quarry from a higher elevation than the particular step you're adding onto, which will be one block height plus the draft of a laden boat deep. After sliding all one level's blocks into place, raise the water level for the next step, and so on.
    Except that the pyramids at Giza are on a plateau.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That method would be obvious to anybody working around tides or seasonally flooding rivers. It is how they built dikes and dams. But I don't believe it was employed for pyramids. We'd find fossils of flattened crabs and such between the stones.
    I disagree. Even more important than finding water animals would be finding water erosion in the stones of the pyramid. No such erosion is found. Furthermore, the fact of water erosion would have likely made the method obviously silly "to anybody working around tides or seasonally flooding rivers" since it would have meant speeding up the erosion process on a structure they were planning to last forever.

    You presented two possibilities and said you doubt either was used. Care to present one that you do find plausible?

    Regards,
    Rv. Jon
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That method would be obvious to anybody working around tides or seasonally flooding rivers. It is how they built dikes and dams. But I don't believe it was employed for pyramids. We'd find fossils of flattened crabs and such between the stones.
    I disagree. Even more important than finding water animals would be finding water erosion in the stones of the pyramid. No such erosion is found. Furthermore, the fact of water erosion would have likely made the method obviously silly "to anybody working around tides or seasonally flooding rivers" since it would have meant speeding up the erosion process on a structure they were planning to last forever.

    You presented two possibilities and said you doubt either was used. Care to present one that you do find plausible?

    Regards,
    Rv. Jon
    Still water does not erode much. I'm talking about controlled seasonal flooding via canal - with gradual increase in depth. That's no more erosion than you'd get in a pool or old flooded quarry. Since these folk did employ dikes, canals, boats, barges, aqueducts and reservoirs, I'm sure applying these to pyramid building would have crossed their minds.

    "Walking" blocks up as in the animation does seem do-able to me. Or, like I said, if they skidded blocks straight up then damp packed sand will make the step face an even ramp. Then reed mats are pretty smooth running with the nap.

    We do know the Nile has shifted, and ran much nearer the pyramids even in historic times.

    I dunno. I don't have a pet theory here. Except that many good solutions would have been "common sense" back then, when we were nothing but "handy".
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Stone blocks can be lifted on rafts using water locks, much the same way ships are lifted and lowered when traversing the Panama Canal. What many think are canals, have been discovered running from the Nile to the footsteps of the Pyramids in Giza. Water elevated pyramid construction is quite a bit more practical than dragging blocks with ropes. With the more commonly accepted method, construction of the ramp would be as difficult and costly as building the actual pyramid.

    My dad wrote a book on it some years ago, called "How to Build a Pyramid". Cool stuff.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: Construction Technique for the Great Pyramid (stone lift 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    I was looking through a book about the standing stone megaliths of Great Britain, when I saw a picture of a group of guys trying to lift a particular megalith with a lever system. I started to wonder, why do they pull down so hard, when they can ultimately only lift their weight in stone because the lever will cause the men fall back once the stone lifts too high on the other end.

    This got me thinking about the pyramids.

    I was going to have this post shaped up nice and bright, but I don't have time for to do those sort of things any more. Here it is then, plain and simple.

    I think the easiest and most efficient method for lifting stones onto the pyramid would be to tie ropes around the stone at the bottom of the pyramid, run them up to the top of the other end, and then tie the rope/ropes around multitudes of people, who would essentially just use their own weight to pull the stone from the other end. Any number of methods could be employed to ease the movement of the stone up the pyramid.



    The average weight of each stone is roughly 2.5 tons, which translates into 5000 lbs. At about 200 lbs. per man, that means that it would take only 25 people to equal the weight of the average block. Throw in a bunch extra, say 200 more, and you could easily have enough to counter the weight of the block and lift it just by the weight of the people tied to the other end. I'm wondering if there is anyone who would want to figure out just how much extra weight would be required to overcome the frictional forces of the moving stone and its initial inertia. I'm no physicist, nor an engineer, so I have little in the way to offer any puzzle like this, other than to throw out this slightly baked idea.




    Regards,
    Rv. Jon

    This will show you how they do it. Machinery movers do this stuff. Builders and riggers do this stuff.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 About new hypothesis of pyramids constructions 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1
    Hello:

    My name is Carlos Eduardo Rodriguez Varona. I am graduated at Education, in the speciality Physics and Electronics. I work as Computer analyzer in my natal city, Camagey, in Cuba.

    I am the owner of the totally new hypothesis of Gizeh's pyramids construction, and I have it shared over all the world. You can know it searching in any place, asking just by my name. Also can do it regarding the publication made by Dr. Colette M. Dowell of it on his own site:
    http://www.robertschoch.net/Great%20...y%20Carlos.htm
    She made a very well corrections to the English translation of my hypothesys.

    I like to know what all of you think about it, and of course, what will be the opinnion of the best specialists of this theme in the world. It is now about two years ago since I show it for the first time in the WWW. Until now there's nobody capable to refuse me it in categorical way, therefore I consider it's a good average to credit it and also to credit the possibilities that ancient egyptians had to made something like this marvels.

    Also I want to tell you I will donate my rights in Arabic language to the people of Egypt. I consider it is the less thing I can do in gratitude to them and to recognize also the greatness of their constructions.

    Any interested can mail me at:
    crvcrv21@yahoo.com.

    With my King regards to all of you,

    Carlos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'm more in favor of a simple burial method. You basically use dirt to fully fill in all the area around the pyramid and bury all the lower levels up to the level where you're working right now, and then, after laying all the blocks on that level, you fill in the whole area around the pyramid with more dirt to bury the level you just built, and start a new level.

    So basically, every layer of the pyramid, except the one you're working on, is under ground. When you're done placing the top layer of blocks, you excavate the whole buried pyramid, and you're done. Of course.... that would take a lot of dirt, but what society is ever short on dirt?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I'm more in favor of a simple burial method. You basically use dirt to fully fill in all the area around the pyramid and bury all the lower levels up to the level where you're working right now, and then, after laying all the blocks on that level, you fill in the whole area around the pyramid with more dirt to bury the level you just built, and start a new level.

    So basically, every layer of the pyramid, except the one you're working on, is under ground. When you're done placing the top layer of blocks, you excavate the whole buried pyramid, and you're done. Of course.... that would take a lot of dirt, but what society is ever short on dirt?

    Oiled Camel skin air bags, Ha-ha.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Well, they've found some buried pyramids over in Mexico. I wonder if they were finished first, and then buried, or if they were buried as part of the construction process, and then the builders just didn't get around to finishing them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    787
    Well, they've found some buried pyramids over in Mexico. I wonder if they were finished first, and then buried, or if they were buried as part of the construction process, and then the builders just didn't get around to finishing them
    do you have links?

    I'm more in favor of a simple burial method. You basically use dirt to fully fill in all the area around the pyramid and bury all the lower levels up to the level where you're working right now, and then, after laying all the blocks on that level, you fill in the whole area around the pyramid with more dirt to bury the level you just built, and start a new level
    thats an interesting theory. do you have more concrete evidence or websites which depict this idea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Kojax,
    look at the geometry of the Giza plateau. Look at the size of the pyramids. Have a long careful think. If necessary calculate the volume of earth required to bury the pyramid. Then abandon your speculation.
    John
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    If one were to use an earthen ramp, you wouldn't bury the entire thing, you'd build a single, narrow ramp. The calculated gradient necessary would make the structure extend so long, it would pass the quarry. This is a massive, counter intuitive project. Probably aliens did it. Same ones who carved Mount Rushmore.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Kojax,
    look at the geometry of the Giza plateau. Look at the size of the pyramids. Have a long careful think. If necessary calculate the volume of earth required to bury the pyramid. Then abandon your speculation.
    John

    Look at the angles and volume of dirt needed. Not really that large a volume.

    http://www.Rockwelder.com/Flash/Pyramids/Pyramids.html



    Sincerely,


    William McCormick,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    in Egypt... why not just dig a BIG hole in a sand dune? layer the bricks that way, so that when natural erosion occurs, the pyramid becomes revealed... maybe that's why tut's tomb took so long to be found, it's site just never eroded away!
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Kojax,
    look at the geometry of the Giza plateau. Look at the size of the pyramids. Have a long careful think. If necessary calculate the volume of earth required to bury the pyramid. Then abandon your speculation.
    John
    I might not have been considering just how huge the pyramid is.... but ask yourself this: how much exponentially larger is the amount of dirt required to bury the pyramid (and labor), than the amount of labor required to move those blocks of which it is constructed in the first place?

    Suppose I want a 5 degree slope leading up to the edge, and I'm going to get there by using a lot of dirt to make a shallow hill that completely surrounds the pyramid.

    Lets see. Going off Wiki, the pyramid is 146.6 meters tall, and approximately 230.4 meters wide measuring the distance along the side (across adjacent corners, rather than opposed corners) Entering those values into my calculator, this gives a slope of about 39.5 degrees.

    The volume of a pyramid shaped object is: V= ((area of the base) * height)/3 , which is also how you calculate the height of a cone.

    So the volume of the pyramid is V = ((230.4 ^2) * 146.6)/3 = 2,594,046 sq meters.

    Calculating in 2 dimensions (to start), I would need a ratio of .0871 to 1 height to length on a 2 dimensional ramp. So, 146.6 meters tall by 1683.1 meters long.

    So, the volume of the hill, if the hill is considered to be a 5 degree cone is V = ((1683.1^2 *pi) * 146.6)/3 = 434, 893, 011 sq meters.

    We can subtract the volume of the pyramid from the volume of the hill. So 434,893,011 - 2,594,046 = 432,298,965

    So, the hill would take approximately 166.6 times more dirt than the volume of the pyramid. If you decided to only build a hill on one side of the pyramid, then I guess that would be 41.7 times more dirt than the volume of the stones.

    Should I try and recalculate for a slope greater than 5 degrees?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Are you arguing with yourself? I'm confused.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Well, yeah surface hardness is kinda irrelevent to compressive strength, where the material is packed into a pocket like a pyramid step.
    I am not entirely sure what you are saying here. Surface hardness is intimately tied to compressive strength. It is a function of grain hardness, shape, size and cementation. These are the same factors that control compressive strength. Perhaps you meant it is not relevant to the construction of the pyramid, rather than it is not relevant to compressive strength. If you meant the former I see your point and agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I really doubt it was done, but the "best way" to build pyramids IMHO is by incremental flooding. Select a valley and cut canal to it. Do this while the Nile is flooded and all the farmers are idle anyway. Quarry from a higher elevation than the particular step you're adding onto, which will be one block height plus the draft of a laden boat deep. After sliding all one level's blocks into place, raise the water level for the next step, and so on.
    Except that the pyramids at Giza are on a plateau.
    Look at sand bags. Zero surface hardness. Yet you can support millions of tons with sand bags.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,178
    If you grease ropes, or build pulleys, and let large animals walk down the other side of the pyramid. You could easily drag a stone up a hill. The army moves incredible loads up hills and mountains with cables. That do break on occasion.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    Are you arguing with yourself? I'm confused.
    I guess I'm just doing what the poster said to do. I'm estimating how much dirt would be needed, and then considering whether to abandon my speculation.

    For reference, we know the volume of the Pyramid itself is: 2,594,046, the builders would certainly be willing to move a volume of material comparable to that.

    I made a mistake above, by using Sine instead of Tangient. But surprising Sin of 5 degrees is almost the same as Tangient of 5 degrees. (0.0871 vs 0.0874), so those calculations should still be accurate.



    The volume of a hill surrounding the whole pyramid, based on the angle of that hill's slope will be V = ((146.6/tan(angle))^2 * pi * 146.6)/3 - 2,594,046

    So, getting a spreadsheet to do the calculations for multiple angles, a hill of the following slope angles, will have the following volumes:

    5 degrees: 428,676,135.8 cubic meters, or 165 times the pyramid's volume
    10 degrees: 103,580,956.6 cubic meters, or 40 times the pyramid's volume
    15 degrees: 43,385,706.14 cubic meters, or 17 times the pyramid's volume
    20 degrees: 22,326,463.63 cubic meters, or 9 times the pyramid's volume
    25 degrees: 12,589,280.34 cubic meters, or 5 times the pyramid's volume
    30 degrees: 7,311,173.33 cubic meters, or 3 times the pyramid's volume


    I can't imagine they'd bother to make a slope steeper than 30 degrees out of dirt, so there you have it. If they only build the hill on one side of the pyramid, then you can proportionally deduct some of the volume. It's far from an impossible task, unless you're trying to make the slope of the hill really, really shallow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4
    Interesting stuff. I was reading recently about the pyramids and I believe the angle was 52o rather than 51o. However I don't suppose that makes too much difference. What I'm wondering about is how many and how big would the ropes needed to have been in order not to break, and how would friction on the ropes have been ameliorated at the two corners?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Far a day
    Interesting stuff. I was reading recently about the pyramids and I believe the angle was 52o rather than 51o. However I don't suppose that makes too much difference. What I'm wondering about is how many and how big would the ropes needed to have been in order not to break, and how would friction on the ropes have been ameliorated at the two corners?
    Well, to determine how much force you need for a given angle of ramp, you just take the amount of force that would be required to move it on a flat surface, and add an amount equal to the mass of the block multiplied by the sine of the angle.

    So Minimum Force = (Sin(angle) * Mass) + (Amount of force needed on a flat surface).

    Basically, the ropes' collective tolerances have to add up to that number. Without knowing what they're made of, though, I wouldn't be able to say how thick they'd need to be or how many of them you'd need.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32 The Role of the Rope 
    Jon
    Jon is offline
    Forum Sophomore Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minnesota, U.S.
    Posts
    162
    And what sort of force would be exerted on the rope supportsthose parts of the structure on which the ropes rest/guide along while the counterweight procedure is being carried out?

    Will the weight of the block (and men opposite it) create too much friction running along the rope, such that an attempt at lifting the rope off the the structure onto 'rope-holders' could not succeed for want of holders strong enough to withstand the weight while sparse/small enough to alleviate the friction?

    Rv. Jon
    :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    If you grease ropes, or build pulleys, and let large animals walk down the other side of the pyramid. You could easily drag a stone up a hill. The army moves incredible loads up hills and mountains with cables. That do break on occasion.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I think this possibility makes more sense, but how about instead of animals walking down the other side, huge carts or baskets are filled with smaller stones until they're heavy enough to pull the larger stone up? If the mass going down weighs more than the mass coming up, then gravity would do all the work for us, right?

    Nobody needs to doubt that the workers could bring little rocks to the top of the pyramid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: The Role of the Rope 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon
    And what sort of force would be exerted on the rope supportsthose parts of the structure on which the ropes rest/guide along while the counterweight procedure is being carried out?

    Will the weight of the block (and men opposite it) create too much friction running along the rope, such that an attempt at lifting the rope off the the structure onto 'rope-holders' could not succeed for want of holders strong enough to withstand the weight while sparse/small enough to alleviate the friction?

    Rv. Jon
    That's the big obstacle, isn't it? How do you build a pulley mechanism that is strong enough but also free enough of friction? If the pulley is raised high enough off the ground relative to the slope, then the ropes don't need to drag or even touch the rest of the slope. They only need to touch that single pulley. (Or maybe use many separate ropes each having their own pulley, if that works better.)

    In the modern world, we have ball bearings for that. I would be amazed if the Egyptians had thought of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Bachelors Degree 15uliane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    depends...
    Posts
    425
    Archeologists have found extremely damaged spines in the buiders village. They have thought from this that the egyptians pulled the blucks on sledges, up low angle slopes made out od dirt.
    http://en.wikipedia/wiki/egyptian_py...ing_techniques
    I couldn,t find a link to the spines-I saw it in a documentary. Sorry!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36 Re: The Role of the Rope 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    In the modern world, we have ball bearings for that. I would be amazed if the Egyptians had thought of it.
    You don't think they would thought of small diameter timbers as rollers?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •