I will repeat the question because you have ignored it the several times several people have asked about your claim that “The [rope]failure rate was far under 1%” :
I can make it larger if you left your reading glasses at McDonald’s:
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS NUMBER???
You do realize that roofs are designed to shed water for many years. They are not designed to provide a low friction surface for lifting objects up the opposite side of your house. The pyramid didn’t need a tarpaper roof. It needed low friction contact points for a rope that bent 70 degrees on one side and 70 degrees on the other making 140 degrees total.
I’m not sure why I even have to sauy these things. It’s like people are bending over backward to not listen. It’s a little like the way Egyptologists understand the ancients; not at all.
You think dragging a rope over a rock surface is ‘low friction’? is it now polished stone or something? (You realize of course, that would be a very rudimentry pully, right? the thing you said offered no mechanincal advantage?)
You still haven’t answered the question of how it “bent at 180 degrees” when going over a peaked roof? (or how you bend anything 180 degrees)
You still havent shown where you get your 70 degrees - and your 140 degree proof shows you still don’t know basic math principles.
AND YOU STILL MISSED THE POINT OF THE EXPERIMENT.
I don’t know what their failure rate ius but I’ve used the same crane for 15 years without needing the ropes replaced. The crane is operated within its capacity and the cables are inspected regularly. When there are “events” there is a special inspection. This is the reality. It is only abuse and neglect that results in broken ropes; nothing else. More than 98% of fatalities from broken ropes today are the result of both abuse AND neglect. Nothing has changed. Designers know the strenght of their ropes and when they are used properly there is no “failure rate” because they don’t fail. People are simply slothful and trust their safety to luck and other people. They hook ropes improperly, swing loads, and carry too heavy loads while never doing proper inspections and then if they survive they blame everyone else.
Nothing has changed except workmanship was highly prized among the pyramid builders. If you were too careless you might lose toes or far worse. They didn’t have many accidents as evidenced by the skeletons of the workers. They worked hard but more importantly they worked smart.
simster, as I understand it, the sides of each step have a 70 degree angle, so the rope would only be turning through 140 degrees in its span across the top of the pyramid.
cladking, without pulleys how did they reduce friction at the corners? How did you determine the level of friction would be minimal?
Stop me when you’ve heard any of this before.
The evidence says they lkifted stones up one step at a time and the pyramid had five steps of 81’ 3" with 70 degree sides. This was the steepest angle they felt comfortable making and these 70 degree sides are visible all over Egypt;
They could have used rollers or curved greased stones.
I believe they used actual pulleys with two on the ascender side and one on the counterweight side. This is based on what they said in the PT. One of the things they said was that the loads hung from the “dm-sceptres”. “Sceptre” meant “machine part” in the ancient language and 27 of them are recorded. Each of these machine parts is shaped like a staff and representative of its actual function. I haven’t yet deduced the meaning of “dm” but this specific sceptre is shaped like a sine curve.
There is not a lot of friction passing a rope over a shallow bend even without a pulley and the friction between the load and the 70 degree side is also very low especially in comparison to the friction of dragging stones up rough ramps. The sides coiuld be greased since men didn’t need to walk on them.
They had a metal shop and this was a very active place since at least two overseers are buried on site.
You’re making this far more complex than it really is. If you pull straight down on the rope slung over your house and the load goes straight up then the rope must bend through 180 degrees. It doesn’t matter if it passes through Albuquerque it is still 180 degree net bend.
The net bend on the step sides was only 140 degrees.
I don’t think thats how the math works - pretty damn sure of it even.
You wouldnt describe the bending of the rope based on the angles of the face - you have to consider the angle at the bend - to cover over the corner itself.
If it was a perfect square - you could qualify that as a 90 degree bend.
At the other end of the square (going down) - it would be another 90 degree bend.
It would NEVER be a “180 degree bend”.
Of course - that means that the load would also have to be FLAT against the surface to get the bend to match any of it - the parts he keeps leaving out of his magical machine.
nope - you’re simply wrong again.
180 degrees is a straight line - there is no “bend” thru 180 degrees.
calculate the interior angle at the top - 70 degree slope to a flat surface - thats the bend
you cannot simply add teh angle of the faces to get your 140 degrees - thats not how it works.
AND YOU STILL MISSED THE POINT OF THE EXPERIMENT.
Dang. The thread is going so fast I missed it.
In all these years no one has ever been able to show any evidence they used ramps. The word “ramp” is actually unattested from the great pyramid building age. People have shgown drawings of stones being pulled on level ground from a thousand years after the great pyramid building age. They show statues bing pulled on level ground and some of the more resourceful ones find quotes from Egyptologists who say they must have used ramps or they even point at ramp remains that point in the wrong direction or are too flimsy for construction traffic.
The fact is ramps really are debunked and even Egyptologists are trying to distance themselves from them a little to avoid the fallout. This is all happening in slow motion but it is happening and it can’t be stopped because there were never any ramps so no evidence will ever be found for them. Eventually people are going to have to look at the actual evidence and the actual titles of the builders. This will tell a wholly different tale.
They did it the easy way. They pulled the stones straight up the side and saved the trip to Albuquerque.
So you pulled it out of your ass. Gotcha.
“Rope,” in this example, being a term of art for 2" steel cables, with each strand the full length of the rope and of consistent tensile strength. Not a rope made of natural fiber, with each strand no more than a couple meters long and of variable tensile strength. One that is prone to rotting, often on the inside where no inspection can see. Apples and oranges, in other words.
Think of it this way. If you have a 90 degree peak bend on the house then each bend at the eves would have to be 45 degrees. Two 45’s and 90 makes 180 degrees. If you have 30 degrees on the top then each eve has to be 75 degrees. One 30 and two 75’s makes 180 degrees.
It doesn’t matter how the roof is configured the net rope change is 180 degrees; straight up vs straight down. All the angles will net out at 180 degrees. The more angles and the greater the rope deflection the greater the total friction. Rope also is worn more on sharper bends. Shallow bends create little wear.
That perfectly describes the triangle - that doesn’t describe the bending of the rope.
The rope is not a triangle - its a straight line - the bend in the rope does not =180 no matter how you try to spin it.
The bend at the peak of the house (or the corner of your rock) is the bend of the rope at that point.
It may have multiple bends - you can’t “add them together” to get the “total bend angle”.
It doesn’t work that way.
AND YOU STILL MISSED THE POINT.
An inspector can see problems in ropes that we probably can’t. Rope has a much more even strenght than chain which is no stronger than its weakest link. I seriously doubt they had much of an issue with rotting. Indeed, I’ve been researching the idea they tarred these ropes to protecxt them from solar radiation damage because it’s possible they lasted for months rather than days as I was projecting at first. I doubt they could get a whole season out of a rope but they might havce had an age limitation on them that they’d buymp up against much more often if they weren’t tarred. Tarring also protects them a little from water damage and it would be common to get some water on them. So far this investigation is at a dead end right now but there is a line in the PT that could imply they were tarred.
There’s no fundamental difference in the nature of wire rope and hemp rope. They both work on very much the same principles and are damaged by the same neglect and misuse. They show similar signs of wear and mistreatment. Inspecting wire rope is a much more common skill than inspection of fibre rope.
[QUOTE=cladking]
There’s no fundamental difference in the nature of wire rope and hemp rope.
[/QUOTE]
Wait…what? :smack: First of all, there is a huge difference between wire steel ‘rope’ and hemp rope. Secondly, where the hell did Egyptians during the Old Kingdom get hemp rope from? I thought you claimed earlier that they were using a type of river flax or palm fibers or something. Now it’s hemp?
No, they don’t. But this is far from the most egregious use of out of your ass knowledge in this thread, so it’s probably not worth correcting you, yet again.
Mystical knowledge no doubt.
You are seriously comparing a modern iron or steel chain to a natural fiber rope made during the Old Kingdom? Well, of COURSE you are. 
You’ve been reading Egyptian text, translated by someone else and then interpreted by yourself to suss this out I’m sure. Have you ever considered, I don’t know, MAKING A FUCKING ROPE USING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE TO THE EGYPTIANS AND TESTING IT OUT? No, of course you haven’t.
And yet, in this very thread there has been a bunch of evidence that you ignored that showed it to basically everyone but you. So, I have no doubt that in years you’ve never seen any, since you just ignore anything that doesn’t fit with your internal narrative. It’s highly amusing when you accuse ‘Egyptologists’ (which seems to be your code word for, literally, every field of science that doesn’t agree with you) of doing this, when over and over you demonstrate that really it’s you that does this.
Yet you admitted earlier that they used ramps in your own theoretical design. And there is archeological evidence of the Egyptians using ramps. They even built the things into their architecture. Whether they had a name for it or not is freaking irrelevant…and I’m not convinced, since you have yet to provide anything resembling a cite for any of your wild ass assertions, that there isn’t a word for it. What you mean here is YOU haven’t attested it…but then, repeatedly you’ve been shown to be wrong about almost everything you’ve said in this thread. If you told me that water was wet and the sky blue at this point I’d require extensive proofs and probably at least 3 cites by experts before I’d even entertain the possibility! I mean, even a stopped clock and a blind squirrel and all that, so gods know you have got to be right about something, sometime. I just have yet to see it.
Hilarious. Strawmen arguments coupled with handwaving. If you’d have just put some woo into this you’d have covered most of the bases wrt your general arguments in this thread.
It’s only the easy way in your own mind. In reality, it would have been a hell of a lot more difficult than you realize…but then, you haven’t got a clue what it would actually take because you are so fixated on reading and interpreting Egyptian text that you’ve never bothered to try any of this stuff in the real world.
??? If a rope goes straight up, through a pulley, and straight down again… Isn’t that a 180 degree turn?
If I’m travelling east, and make a U-Turn, now going west, I’ve made a 180 degree turn. Why shouldn’t that apply to up and down?
(“The Ack-Ack is getting too rough, sir! Let’s do a three-sixty and get out of here!”)
the rope has completed a 180 degree turn - yes - but thats not the ‘bend’ being discussed here.
if you have a rope - bent over the side of a rock - even if you hit bottom on the other side of that rock - you (or atleast I) would not call that a 180 degree ‘bend’ in the rope at the point it is being ‘bent’ on the rock. if you have multiple points of impact - you can’t add those angles and get the “bend angle”.
The enitre circuit - sure - maybe you can qualify that as 180 - especially in your two examples - neither of which are involved in cladkings crap.
And he still missed the point of the experiment - > Which was to refute his “pulleys offer no mechanical advantage” - as well as demonstrate wear and tear on ropes and materials in a very simple fashion.
That figures, we only have your interpretation of ancient texts as the evidence.
That is not what I’m asking here. Otherwise bible literals would had a say so in biology class.
But they don’t and neither personal interpretations of ancient texts about what in reality were ways to get to the underworld in the afterlife.
Just admit that you have no physical evidence.
Read it again, you are not making any sense, I actually posted about real CO2 geysers, and I reported that they do exist, your straw man tactics are getting tiresome.
It is because I did look at what CO2 geysers do produce (water with carbonic acid, that is also a part of acid rain) that we can see how irrational your idea of co2 geysers used to build pyramids wile using limestone and funiculars with the same material is.
Now what you are doing is just stalling, the question was also what was the mechanism used to push all that natron into the stream to neutralize the acid.
Telling us that the “carbonation was done elsewhere” is ignorantly doing it backwards, the real and artificial CO2 geysers show that the water comes out acidic and ready to do a number on limestone.