Re: Pyramid stone?


"Philip Deitiker" <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9Z6Ce.428455$cg1.77254@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "stevewhittet" <whittet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> says in
> news:Bqadnc9PDJkK7EXfRVn-vw@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> >
> > "Philip Deitiker" <Donevenask@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:AXZBe.425728$cg1.113855@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > .
> >> "stevewhittet" <whittet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> says in
> >> news:P6idnVt57eyY2kXfRVn-gA@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >
> >> > The load of the crane, after being spread out by the area of
> >> > its footing (SF) bears on the soil underneath (PSF not PSI)
> >> >
> >> > http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/construction/Manuals/Falsework/Ap
> >> > pen dix_B.pdf
> >>
> >> You may be talking about soil, but I was talking about the
> >> footing underneath the crane and weight spread, at the point of
> >> the bottom of the footing the weight would be spread over 169
> >> square feet, then you can do your little calculation if you
> >> like.

I'm talking about engineering which is a discipline that makes
it easier to talk about any subject where you can run the numbers.

Think of it this way, the soil is the bottom line...

I would love to talk to you about footings, concrete, stone, rammed earth,
rubble, gravel pads, mat slabs, slabs on grade, grade beams, anything you
like,
but you need to understand that their purpose is to spread a load out over
an area
sufficient to allow the soil they bear on to take that load without
settling.

We can talk about any load on them that you like. The reason I introduced
the concept of lifing a very heavy load from a number of different lift
points
was so that you could see how that principle could be transferred to the
problem of lifting a heavy stone.

The reason I like talking about cranes with masts and booms and
counterweights
is that they are analagous to the shaduf which was widely used throughout
the ancient
near east. In its simplest form its a lever and fulcrum. The boom acts as a
lever and
the mast as an adjustable fulcrum.

The reason its useful to talk about ramps is that in their simplest form
they are a wedge.
The wedge introduces us to the concept of vectors and how the transfer of
the direction
of forces can be used to obtain a mechanical advantage.

In reading about something cited as an example its probably more productive
to focus on the big picture the example is being used to explain (how to
lift a
heavy stone with a minimum of effort) than to muddy the issue.
> >
> > Not having been trained in the discipline makes it a little
> > difficult for some amatuer enthusiasts to run the numbers
> > properly but eventually they discover that every couple has its
> > moment and then it becomes a lot of fun to find those moments.
>
> Let's put it like this Steve, while others make take great fun out of
> arguing with kooks, you start with the hyperbolic exaggerations and I
> am not going to waste much time with you. You begin throwing out
> propoganda like the above and your going to get plonked. Get it
> clearly in your head now, you are deviating down the path of Stevens
> and Johannson. You continue to make gross logical errors and
> present them as fact.

I'm happy to provide you any information that would make it easier for you
to understand the issues being discussed but I find argument
counterproductive
and will allow that when it comes to...arguing, ...hyperbolic
exaggerations,...
gross logical errors presented as fact...I simply have to defer to your
expertise.

> No reasonable engineer is going to lift 25 million lbs with a
> relatively small crane, and my logical point was that if you had to
> do this (i.e. you had a crane that could) you would first examine the
> substrate the crane is sitting on and you would dig down to find
> 'hardened soil' but also create a 'hard' footing to spread things
> out. I couldn't give a damn about whether you measure in PSF or PSI,
> the point was that the strength of the stone on the footing is
> measured in PSI relative to concrete.

On Tuesday, July 12, 2005 8:19 PM I posted this

"Actually they are more like 70 tons, but the issue is
that unlike the Queen Mary they aren't hollow. The
Queen Mary displaces enough w3dwr that it floats.

If you were to try to lift 150,000 tons with 12 cranes
bearing on say 1000 SF each of not mud or sand but
good solid gravel that can support 2500 PSF you
would simply drill a dozen holes in the ground
with the cranes."

Now a reasonable engineer makes a big problem
a small one by dividing it up. You might have responded
then as you did above

> "if you had to do this (i.e. you had a crane that could)
> you would first examine the substrate the crane is sitting on
> and you would dig down to find 'hardened soil' but also
> create a 'hard' footing to spread things out.

I think the conversation would have stopped there because
your choice of language and thought process reveals to me
where you are coming from.

Had you proposed that instead of lifting 25 million lbs with
a dozen large cranes you could use 100 smaller cranes and
place their reactions so the moment is rotated around a couple
thus gaining a mechanical advantage I would have thought
that reasonable and quite logical. That helps spread the load out
so then I would have understood that you were in fact thinking
about the bearing.

A reasonable engineer would not try to lift the whole load
the whole distance in one operation but would do it in stages using
cribbing and temporary supports to spread the load out as evenly
as possible so having more cranes available to take the load from
more lift points helps there as well.

> I couldn't give a damn about whether you measure in PSF or PSI,
> the point was that the strength of the stone on the footing is
> measured in PSI relative to concrete.

Loads are measured in PSF, material strength in PSI. Material strength
may also be evaluated in many other ways besides its unreinforced
strength in compression. For stone toughness and wear resistance are
factors and granite may have a compresive strength that is 20 times
that of concrete but that doesn't mean it will transfer any more PSF
to the soil than the concrete will.

Soils are rated in terms of their weight or density, elastic modulous,
internal resistance, internal friction, cohesion, dilitancy, and water
content.
Typically sand is characterised as loose to compact and clay as soft to
hard.
The rating is tied to the density of the soil so if the density is 100 lb a
cu ft
the soil is considered to be capable of taking a load of 1 ton per SF
and if the density is 140 lb a cu foot the allowable load is increased
to 5 tons per SF

> >> >> 25,000,000 divided by 2500 lbs per square inch would mean on
> >> >> a pad of concrete 10,000 square inches. = 100 inches x 100
> >> >> inches = 8 ft by 8 ft. I can see how come you think you need
> >> >> 100 pyramid volumes of stone, you obviously need a couple
> >> >> years more of basic feild math.
> >
> > The nice thing about engineering is that the numbers don't lie.
> > Its 25,000,000 divided by 2500 PSF not PSI.
>
> Sorry, no, its PSI the conpression stength of concrete.
> http://www.nrmca.org/aboutconcrete/cips/35p.pdf
> And please, no more Bullshitting.

The load (25,000,000 PSF) is given in PSF,
the soil resistance (2500 PSF) is calculated in PSF
the strength of the material used to distribute the load
(lets say 4000 PSI for exterior concrete) is calculated in PSI

If you can't understand the difference between a load, a resistance to a
load
or reaction and a material strength try more reading and less cutting and
pasting
of articles about how to test for the compressive strength of concrete.

> >> A car travels from california to New York it is amazing that
> >> millions of times a cars weight in concrete is laid for this to
> >> happen, therefore aliens laid out the freeway system. That is
> >> essentially your logic.

No, that is your logic, it bears absolutely no relation to anything I have
said

> >> Not a stone but hundreds of stones.

The issue first raised was how to lift a single heavy stone.

(There are 70 stones weighing 70 tons used to span the vault
of the Grand Gallery and some pretty heavy stones at the base
of the casing but most of the stones in the GP are actually
pretty ordinary for any masonry construction of the period.)

> >>If the pyramids were made out of mortar, would you tribute the
> >> ramp to a single grain of sand?

Why even suggest using a ramp, its a huge counterproductive waste
of time and materials. I can lift the heaviest stones in the structure using
the structure itself and some very simple tools and so could and did
the Egyptians.

> >>Your initial premise is wrong,
> >> that a ramp is built for a single stone, the ramp is evolving
> >> to reflect the evolving needs of a growin pyramid.

There is no need to build a ramp. There is no evidence that one was used.
The evolving needs of the growing pyramid are easily serviced by lifting
stones from course to course. The casing stones removed from the GP
to face the buildings of Cairo were in fact removed in that manner.

> > Ty editing your posts before you send them. You will reduce the
> > number of spelling and grammar errors, take out some of the
> > mistatements of fact, be more coherent and pleasant in tone and
> > attain a higher status in the eyes of your peers.
>
> Actually I intend to get more course in my tone as you continue to
> repeat the same gross,hyperbolic errors of bad judgement.

Suit yourself, maybe that strategy will convince me that I should
defer to your expertise. I don't think so, but they say nothing is
impossible for people who refuse to listen to reason.

regards,

steve



.

Quantcast