Giza

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:56 am

What kind of levers?

Reed? Cedar wood? Copper? Steel??

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:04 am

Minimalist wrote:What kind of levers?

Reed? Cedar wood? Copper? Steel??

I've used steel and wood. They probably used wood, reinforced with copper plates.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:20 am

See...I can see moving a 2.5 ton stone with a couple of wooden levers...but not a 50-70 ton stone. The lever would just crack.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 2:42 pm

At 50-70 tons I imagine the ropes would break too. I don't know how strong those ropes were during this period but I expect they were pretty good.

It would probably require many ropes to pull or lift 50 tons though.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:53 pm

It would probably require many ropes to pull or lift 50 tons though.

No doubt, although again, without an advanced pulley system you have an inherent limitation on how many ropes you can use. To make progress you must have all the ropes being pulled in the same direction.
You can make the ropes longer, and thus get more men on each rope, but you run the risk of more weak points in the rope by doing that.

But, if you have a stone that is 4-6 feet wide and 12-15 long, you are only going to be able to put a certain number of ropes on the one end you are pulling. Probably two, one rope on each end since if you had 3 ropes I still think these guys would be falling all over each other.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:43 pm

One other thought about those wrap-around ramps.

As I recall, in rough terms the pyramid was 460 feet tall and was composed of about 220 courses of stone. So...in order to maintain the angle, that means that each succeeding tier of stone could be set back no more than about a foot from the edge of the lower stone. That would not seem to leave a lot of space to support a footing for that ramp.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:47 pm

Minimalist wrote:One other thought about those wrap-around ramps.

As I recall, in rough terms the pyramid was 460 feet tall and was composed of about 220 courses of stone. So...in order to maintain the angle, that means that each succeeding tier of stone could be set back no more than about a foot from the edge of the lower stone. That would not seem to leave a lot of space to support a footing for that ramp.

I don't buy the wrap-around ramp.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:49 pm

Neither do I but the current thinking on a single straight ramp is that it would have had three times the volume of the pyramid itself and that seems to have forced the Egyptology Club to rethink it's position.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:03 pm

Minimalist wrote:Neither do I but the current thinking on a single straight ramp is that it would have had three times the volume of the pyramid itself and that seems to have forced the Egyptology Club to rethink it's position.

I see no problem with the ramp being bigger than the pyramid itself. It would have been constructed of materials that would be easily removed when they were done. Someone said it needed a 10 degree slope. I don't see why it would have to have such a shallow angle. You probably wouldn't want to go more than 25 or 30 degrees from level, but 10 degrees is just too shallow to accomplish anything. With the right counterweight system it could be as much as 45 degrees.(there oughta be a damn degree button on here somewhere). It has become my considered opinion that people are over-thinking this. After all it comes down to piling a buncha rocks as high as possible. Labor intensive, but not rocket science.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:09 pm

I watched the pyramid building show on Discovery not long ago. It wasn't very exciting but one thing was brought up that we haven't really considered here. That is the use of lubrication.

Warning: I googled ancient lubrication and got some wierd sex sites. Use more keywords.

Anyway, the use of a good lubricant will help anything move easier.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:17 pm

I see no problem with the ramp being bigger than the pyramid itself

Time. Get rid of the 20 year time limitation and everything becomes possible. Treat the damn things like the cathedrals of Europe instead of tombs for one man and you can take as long as you like to build it.

Two factors influence the ramp angle. The idea of barefoot coolies dragging a heavy stone uphill and the fact that each level of stone is only, about, two feet above the previous level.

Plus, there was ole Zahi one time showing off a piece of gypsum encrusted material which he claimed was part of the ramp. It looked like ersatz concrete and sure as hell not the kind of stuff that a rock would slide on easily. Besides, where would even 10 million tons of that go?
They had no trucks to haul it away.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:19 pm

I saw that show also, Beags.

Maybe it's just me but I wondered what would happen to the crew that came along BEHIND the crew that had just spread the lubricant....

Would they be slipping on their asses? Lubrication works both ways.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:24 pm

Could well be Min. It's just something that I haven't seen brought into consideration here. If they did move 50 ton stones though, I'd think they would have to have some serious slick surface.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:25 pm

where would even 10 million tons of that go?

Scattered to the four winds.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:33 pm

Beagle wrote:Could well be Min. It's just something that I haven't seen brought into consideration here. If they did move 50 ton stones though, I'd think they would have to have some serious slick surface.

No argument but I suspect it would end up looking like a Keystone Kops routine.