[Rockhounds] Stonehenge rebuilt-maybe off topic?

[Kreigh Tomaszewski]

Axel,

I don't really see a problem. 

The first key is balancing the block (square or rounded) on one or two
small stones so it can be rotated. Flat or rounded faces should not make
a significant difference with that small a contact point.

The second key is tipping back and forth on the length to be able to
raise the block. Again, flat or rounded faces have no effect on this.

The third key was the wave shaped rail used to roll the square blocks.
With rounded blocks the rail is probably not necessary because they
would roll by themselves.

Large blocks of stone would tend to be quarried with flat faces. Wear in
transporting them by rolling would be concentrated on the corners,
rounding the block faces. I suspect weathering of these thousands of
years old blocks would also be concentrated at the edges, rounding them
over time. The blocks of Stonehenge may originally have had flat faces
when the construction occurred.

The only real issue I see is that rounded faces might make it harder to
affix levers for rotating the blocks, but the contour could also be an
advantage as the curve makes it easier to grip the stone. A lever with
curved jaws

		_____________________
		      [_(   )_]

would not pop off and would make it easier to rock the stone block to
place pebbles under it.

The only unanswered question I had was how to you get a fulcrum under a
large block sitting on the ground to get the process started. I assummed
a long first class lever. This step is probably the limiting factor in
how big a block could be and still be moveable.

As Kermit the Frog said, "Time's fun when you're having flies".

Kreigh



Axel Emmermann wrote:
> 
> Hi Stu and Kreigh,
> 
> After careful consideration I think I just may have found a musca domestica
> linnaeus in the ointment.
> The concrete beams are rectangular in circumference. That means that the
> weight of the beam is evenly distributed over the contact zone with the
> wooden beams or rollers.
> A object that is less "flat" in circumference would seriously reduce the
> surface of the pressure point. I looked at some photos of Stonehenge and I
> found that the erected stones are quite rounded, almost oval.
> Wouldn't they rather crush the wooden rollers or beam upon which they rest?
> 
> Hate to be the party-p... but this needs some thinking...
> 
> Cheers
> Axel
> 
> 
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com
> > [mailto:rockhounds-bounces at lists.drizzle.com] Namens Kreigh
> > Tomaszewski
> > Verzonden: donderdag 6 maart 2008 3:41
> > Aan: Rockhounds at drizzle.com: A mailing list for rock and gem
> > collectors
> > Onderwerp: Re: [Rockhounds] Stonehenge rebuilt-maybe off topic?
> >
> > Stu,
> >
> > Truely amazing!
> >
> > Very on topic; I'm sure we've all tried to move big rocks at
> > one time or another.
> >
> > Thank you very much for sharing this.
> >
> > Kreigh
> >
> >
> >
> > Stu Schmitt wrote:
> > >
> > > It's amazing that this guy could figure out something which
> > has confounded scholars for centuries. Not only did he figure
> > it out but he demonstrates it.  This guy could build a
> > replica of Stonehenge single handedly while a committee of
> > Civil Engineering professors from leading universities were
> > debating how it might be done.
> > >
> > > http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/posts/moving_big_rocks/
> > >
> > > With appreciation & gratitude,
> > > Stuart Schmitt
> > > Clear Creek Crystal Mine
> > > www.arcrystalmine.com
> > > 60 Mary's Eagle Trail
> > > Mount Ida, AR 71957
> > > (870) 867-2443
> > >