Pyramid construction method solved., Same.

I moved safes for ten year. I'm way friggin smart.

Haven't read all the rules and don't know if this is bad form here but...I have my theory all laid out with drawings on another site. No lost tech, no aliens, no cranes or sleds. Simple tried and true blue collar safe moving techniques applied to the big pointed thing in Egypt. All there. From quarry to tip. It's so simple you're gonna freak. Only tools for moving blocks are rollers, levers, cribs, some rope and men to pull on it. It's all there, in detail.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/123986-post1.html

If that scares you, search the net for political debate forums. Go to forum "Science and Technology" the thread "How to build pyramid" I'm named teacher there. You don't have to join to read this. But you'll be joining. I challenge you to find a fault in my method.

This is it kids, it's over, I'm serious, which you will learn is something for me. Ya'll can't handle this.


So guys, I've been looking for a place with smart people to go over my theory. I came here instead.

I don't know much about the subject of pyramid construction but I enjoyed seeing your diagrams of the process you're assuming.

The second image in the sequence you posted seems the most difficult:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/attachments/...pg?d=1130225133

I think the lever would be using a rounded fulcrum instead of a square block, as there would be a lot of pressure when the lever encounters the edges. The lever would also be seeing a lot of stress at this point, and maybe winching up one side of the block would help redistribute some of the weight, but of course that would be more work.

I like the idea of building an intermediate rock stairway to create a series of smaller steps, and that could have been removed later.

But again, I don't know much about this subject. Assuming the dimensions are correct in your example, the question seems whether or not a lever could support that much weight.

Marchimedes,


"Assembling" the Pyramid is the EASY part!

Now all you have to do is make a steel "safe" without metal tools, welders, etc.


Quarrying, transporting, dressing & facing, etc. are by far the more difficult part of the job.


However, a toast to "movers of big things" (you included)!



T.Roc

Perhaps that part of the problem should be subcontracted out to an engineering forum.

Assuming the lever is wood and it can work .. should be easy enough to work out the stresses.. would wood fail? Give me a week or two and I'll do it.

My experience of moving heavy things suggests that the last thing you need is a smartass. A team with lots of experience is what you need.

-C2.

Perhaps that part of the problem should be subcontracted out to an engineering forum.

Assuming the lever is wood and it can work .. should be easy enough to work out the stresses.. would wood fail? Give me a week or two and I'll do it.

My experience of moving heavy things suggests that the last thing you need is a smartass. A team with lots of experience is what you need.

-C2.

O let a guy that moved lots of heavy things (safes, vaul doos, night drops, Safe Dwposite boxes, modula vaults, small buildings) for ten years tell you "yea, no problem".

Week or two alone you will learn what was taught to me by a master and used lng time?

Cracking wise makes things heavier?

Like me and my coworkers.

Marchimedes,

Ok, old topic and its been long since I read on it.
Anyway, you propose 2.3million blocks weighing on average ~5000lbs/2268Kg, can be pushed on roll by a "muscle man" in image 3, and what exactly will be supporting this weight, from underneath (without being crushed/tilting), and how do you expect a human to push/roll this up?
What about this lever bar application, and its material; would it sustain the forces applied to it, and bear the weight without snapping instantly?
What is the composition material of this lever, in availability at that time?
How much strength do you reckon it takes to push/lever 2268Kg even an inch, let alone an inch at over 30degrees in slope, with a "roller" on top, to counter "backward" roll?
Dont you think in image 4, if after the lever is lifting the block, onto the roller on the next level, UNLESS a strong/consistent push is made, the block will roll back down/fall back?
What do you think would happen IF it fell back on you, ~2.5ton that is?

Thanks.

Hi Marchimedes,

I'm on it. Can you check out where I'm up to so far?

I don't doubt what you say but there do seem to be a few doubting Thomas's (or Thomasinas - can't tell nowadays) .

Need to know how far the end under the block is going to be from the pivot .. this should give us the number of levers required and the number of chaps required to hang on to them.

Being too lazy to actually look at the tiny drawings I'll guess pivot is about 6 inches from the block.

Chaps will be pulling about (say) 5 feet from the pivot giving a mechanical advantage of about 10:1

And we want to lift about 5,000 lbs.

So we need 500 lbs of force ..

Two guys per lever could do about 100 lbs force so we need 5 pairs per block. Possibly a bit crowded .. how's it going so far?

You could move the pivot closer to the block .. depends on the plan and how many years you've got.

All comments welcome.

-Confused2.

Background stuff before I lose it..

Some figures for wood.
http://www.woodbin.com/ref/wood/strength_table.htm

Tensile strength for wood seems to be greater than compression strength so we can expect failure from compression and ignore tension.

They weren't cut and hauled, they were poured.

http://www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology/pyramids/

Arthur

If they were cast in situ I suspect they would either fit better or worse than what they do.

Which brings us back to..
Do you want this block shifted or not?

-C2.

The fact that they FIT SO WELL has always been one of the main mysteries of how they were built. Casting them in place SOLVES that problem.

In fact it SOLVES ALL THE PROBLEMS of how they were built.

Arthur

OK, I'll leave it where it is until somebody comes along and wants it moved. Bound to happen. Always does.

-C2.

I'm not taking sides here .. just posting stuff as I find it.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/material.htm

From the photo of the quarry it is clear those guys knew a lot about cutting stone.

The concrete claim extends to many types of stone.
http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyra...he-evidences/1/

As I see it the technology to crush large amounts of stone (of various types) sufficiently finely that even a casual passerby would mistake it for native rock is about as difficult as cutting blocks out in one go.

Quite a few people must have looked at these stones with magnifying glasses .. possibly even with microscopes. It seems to have been possible to identify where the rocks came from without noticing they had been scrunched up and reconstituted later .. ???

One writer speaks of diorite being too hard to carve therefore it must have been cast. Just a magnifying glass would answer this. If you can't carve it then how do you crush it so fine that nobody has noticed before? I don't think many rocks can be turned into concrete .. if one rock was used as the aggregate in another it would be sooo glaringly obvious .. and yet it hasn't been reported.

-C2.

Check that site again, I've made it a little easier to get the gist quickly.

Poured in place, that's so debunked.

http://www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology/

Arthur

I don't understand how this 'poured' 'not poured' thing can be be so difficult to resolve. If the blocks are cast then there will be no fossils poking out so no fossil will ever be cut and if they are sawn then the fossil orientation will be random right up to the edge and many will be sawn through. All I need is a trip to Egypt and ten minutes with a magnifying glass and I'll know the answer. Since the pouring fans have produced no evidence of the type of edge to be expected from pouring then I guess they don't have that evidence which means they don't have a case.

Are the fossils sawn through or not?

-C2.