From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Mon May 10 1999 - 16:11:09 MDT
Dwayne wrote:
> Bzzzzt! I didn't say "hauling" I said "moving"
Same thing.
> your railway example requires vast amounts of infrastructure before it
> will move an inch.
Irrelevant. Your claim was "we can't do that". I was pointing out that we
move similar amounts of mass on a daily basis.
> Now, do you know this for a fact? That this is how it would be done? I'm
> thinking your rock can't flex a lot, so what about the bit where it goes
> from the inclined plane of the ramp to the horizontal plane of the
> carriage? Won't it crack?
I know for a fact that it has been done that way - by everyone from the
ancient Egyptians on forward. Thick blocks won't crack, and thin ones are
placed on a sufficiently sturdy support structure before being moved (you
can also play with the shape of the base of the ramp to reduce such
stresses). Your motive force can be anything from humans (for small blocks)
to bulldozers (for big ones) to huge, custom-built engines (for really
gigantic objects).
> I'm not being contrary, I just want to make sure that we are dealing
> with known engineering principles here, not lots of people playing "I
> think" games based on spurious theories of modern capability.
I suggest you do some web searches on topics like "heavy hauling", "bridge
building" and "heavy construction". You may find the results enlightening.
> I'm not aware of how we could lift a million-ton object..
> You haven't suggested how we could lift a thousand ton object? Anyone
> know what the carrying capacity of the largest crane in the world is?
That isn't relevant. You don't move gigantic objects (> a few thousand
tons) by renting a crane. You do it by building a special set of machines
just for the job at hand. If necessary, you also build whatever
infrastructure those machines require. That's how a lot of modern mining,
bridge building and dam construction is done, and it is also what the
ancients did (albeit on a much smaller scale).
Now, I'm not sure what the theoretical limits to this would be, but I do
know that we can move 100,000 ton objects without even trying hard - trains,
oil rigs and all sorts of ships easily make it into this weight range. That
is far beyond anything the ancients ever did, and it is also far below the
limits of what we could do if we needed to.
> Um. So much for that bright idea..
> I realise that you can get talking heads to say anything, but I would
assume
> that a show which is trying to convince people of dubious stuff would make
> extra effort to get qualified talking heads.
Why? I would assume exactly the opposite. It is standard practice for
journalists to decide what quote they want, then find someone who will give
it to them. They get paid for selling airtime, not for giving accurate
information. The more sensational they can make a show like this, the more
likely they are to be rewarded for producing it.
> Mind you, archaeologists will frequently come up with explanations which
> defy rational analysis should you actually try to attempt what they are
> saying, as they have a professional abhorrence of the "we have no idea"
> response.
Not true. As I said before, this isn't idle speculation. There have been
dozens of projects in which archaeologists have actually built things using
the same methods they think that the ancients used. The techniques behind
just about all of the famous construction in Egypt, Greece and the Middle
East have been demonstrated this way. So have the techniques used to build
the statues on Easter Island, and there is spotty (but growing) coverage of
methods from India, Northern Europe and the New World.
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:42 MST