A proposal for a simple construction machine

I'm sure this has been done before, but I think I have designed a machine capable of appeasing all the critique attached to ancient simple machine theories.

Short sections of rope or cable to avoid stretching. No need for drilling holes. Minimum amount of labor. No wheels required.



Explanation: The machine is moved into place and hooked to the block. The central boom lever is secured in it's forward most (down) position. The teal colored notches are used by 4 men to leverage the machine against the weight of the block. Lifting the front off of the ground a bit. Once the machine has been sufficiently lifted to about a 45 degree angle, the central lever is released. The men push the front of the frame down to the ground, using the top ropes attached to the central lever's drum (red thing), to store kinetic energy. They move to the front of the machine and rotate the front winch mechanism (tan) with long levers that are placed and replaced to rotate it. Three men hold the winch, while a fourth repositions his lever. As the block lifts upward, it pulls on the pulley system attach to the central lever and central drum, and acts as it's own counterweight.

When they need to reset the machine, they secure the central lever and repeat the process again.

The machine would move well over reasonable terrain, use a small amount of labor, and be easily repaired unless it suffered structural failure.

Could my machine move the various big chunks of stone in the ancinet world? I think the probability of the Egyptians using something like this is pretty high. If you want to know about the tools a craftsman uses, look at his finished product. A finished work like the temples in Egypt would be built with sophisicated tooling.

In architecture you are taught to transfer a load to the ground (or support) as directly as possible. The two elevated points you have that appear to be pulleys or the end attachment for your rope should have columns under them to take that weight/stress. As it is, your structure appears too weak in supporting those points.

From a historical point, the ancient Egyptians did not employ capstans or pulleys. Whether your device works is somewhat immaterial, if it utilizes a technology that was unknown to ancient people. They did manage to get by fairly well with simple tools - the inclined plane and the lever. Your design looks like it would fit in better with the Roman era.

ETA: gave you a S+F btw. Thinking about how you (even with modern tech) might go about building an ancient edifice can result in some insight to the problem faced by those ancient builders.

Maybe you can make 2 drawings, showing your design at the two extremes of its range of motion, it would convey it's operation a little better.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Yes two drawings would be a good idea. The structure I have outlined isn't really to demonstrate how the structure could support a load, just outline the basic shape. I probably should've made it more on the technical side but I wanted to dress it up a bit with a few braces.

As far as how a machine might be built, I think geometric shapes would be used because of the Egyptian building style. It's obvious to me that they were comfortable with geometry, so why not add that into their construction machines?

It's interesting that you mention the Roman empire. The Egyptian Pyramid construction dates and the Roman empire are not that far apart. The Romans and the Greeks mention the pyramid. Perhaps when the Romans conquored Egypt they did so to gain technology?

source

But if the thinking behind the pyramid’s design remains unknown, there is a second puzzle that should be easier to solve: the question of who first entered the Great Pyramid after it was sealed in about 2566 B.C. and what they found inside it.

source

map

I think the idea of building temporary forms that are placed and fastened around stones and just rolling them like a big wheel to the construction site would be the easiest way to transport them. It even works out via rough calculation that the rolling resistance of a (seriously heavy) 3m cubed limestone block with a form built around it is something that should be able to be moved by a half-dozen people or so provided that the surface being transported across has minimal deformation. Possibly even less manpower is needed if you make it so that a lever can be used to aid in turning the rolling stone. (Also details are in my last post on the Puma Punka Pyramid thread.)

Also this method is remarkably simple (even stupidly so), once pictured.

Your device seems more like something suitable for something like final placement of megalith stones after they arrive at the build site, and maybe something useful for placing stones within a transport form at the quarry site. Nothing against it though, however rolling resistance is much easier to deal with than dragging friction.

reply to post by pauljs75


I think a form built around the blocks would probably be destroyed. It's creative, but I think the block be free rolling very quickly. Not to mention it doesn't do much to help the process on level ground.

The beauty of my machine, is that it would work the entire way. The stones could be hooked up as they're being chiseled from the quarry. Thank you for pointing that out.

Not a bad idea...

I have often thought we must be missing something with how these stones were moved. Nothing hugely complex but innovative none the less. Just looking at your thumbnail sketch, I got a couple ideas for variations which might work too.

I know the party line is only the most basic of tools for the Egyptians. They used rocks to make and move other rocks with some string and a zillion slaves or maybe volunteers or maybe they were only a few or maybe.... Could be but I doubt it.

Originally posted by ABNARTY
Not a bad idea...

I have often thought we must be missing something with how these stones were moved. Nothing hugely complex but innovative none the less. Just looking at your thumbnail sketch, I got a couple ideas for variations which might work too.

I know the party line is only the most basic of tools for the Egyptians. They used rocks to make and move other rocks with some string and a zillion slaves or maybe volunteers or maybe they were only a few or maybe.... Could be but I doubt it.

Its an interesting idea, has it been tested? Herodotus comment leaves credence to your idea.

No 'party line' just consensus in accordance with the evidence the AE left. The AE did record some images of moving big rocks, by sled and boat, however they didn't move a LOT of very heavy stones, they did move lots of smaller ones which work wise probably took more effort than the occassional monsters. AE rope technology was one of their strengths and it allowed them to move stones, some of this rope has survived. No they didn't use slaves, the used craftsmen and for muscle teams of men not needed for farming during the annual Nile flood, a type of corvee. Yep they did use harder rocks to shape softer ones.

reply to post by Hanslune





As far as "an" idea, not much different than your typical log hauler/load sled. Yeah, I got it, no wheels but with leverage you would need them. The load is slung totally or partially under the frame and moved along on skids powered by levers. Still angular momentum just without a wheel.

I think this would provide a smoother ride than rollers for a brittle slab of stone. Especially at very slow rates of speed.

Sorry. I just don't buy a 100 dudes on ropes dragging a rock through the desert. All the 'experiments' to prove/disprove how they did are not holistic. They take on one slice of the mission and extrapolate from there. As in any endeavor, especially ones more complex, you miss the synergistic roadblocks of moving parts over spans of time.