I can my self move any megalithic stone on hundreds of tons with physics

[jlivingstonsg]

I could my self move any megalithic stone in the world.

I have always wondered why they cut the larger stones with so flat surfaces already in the stone quarry.

This is why......

 

Just give me 100 liter of mercury and I will build a narrow fit channel, for any large megalithic stone,

and build the channel so that front of the channel have room for the stone to be able to float

and be moved the larger amount of mercury under the stone as the mercury is transfered under and beside the stone to the back.

Then I gather the mercury, fill in behind the stone and dig up in front of it,

to be able to make the stone to float and pushed another bit in my channel.

I am sick of all this nonsens of magic or aliens.

I say it again.

I can move any megalithic stone my self if I just get 100 liters or more, to make the stone to float in the mercury.

Master of Science in Engineering Physics.

Magnus Ivarsson

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, jlivingstonsg said:

I could my self move any megalithic stone in the world.

I have always wondered why they cut the larger stones with so flat surfaces already in the stone quarry.

This is why......

 

Just give me 100 liter of mercury and I will build a narrow fit channel, for any large megalithic stone,

and build the channel so that front of the channel have room for the stone to be able to float

and be moved the larger amount of mercury under the stone as the mercury is transfered under and beside the stone to the back.

Then I gather the mercury, fill in behind the stone and dig up in front of it,

to be able to make the stone to float and pushed another bit in my channel.

I am sick of all this nonsens of magic or aliens.

I say it again.

I can move any megalithic stone my self if I just get 100 liters or more, to make the stone to float in the mercury.

Master of Science in Engineering Physics.

Magnus Ivarsson

I hope you are not imagining that Neolithic people had access to hundreds of litres of liquid mercury.  That would be quite mad. 

[jlivingstonsg]

46 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I hope you are not imagining that Neolithic people had access to hundreds of litres of liquid mercury.  That would be quite mad. 

The short answer would be they get the mercury from the mercury ores.  China had been able to extract mercury from the ore since about 5000 years ago. Mercury is commonly found in many parts of China, and the mercury ores usually consist of mercury sulphide and in ancient China, before they found out the method to extract mercury, they use it as a coloring because of the bright red color.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-ancient-Chinese-get-all-of-their-mercury?share=1

[Externet]

There is a problem with the

3 hours ago, jlivingstonsg said:

Just give me 100 liter of mercury and I will build a narrow fit channel,

Give me ?   Go mining it yourself.

After all the effort and time spent prospecting, mining, refining it and digging, filling your channel,  (that is 'if it floats')  the megalithic stone will be already hundred of metres away by pushing it on older roller/wheeled methods.  With no poisoned workers. 

And never forget Murphy's law'  The nearest Hg mine will be a thousand kilometres from your megalythic stones.

Do you know what is a 'narrow' channel filled with 100 litres of mercury ?

Is it 10cm x 10cm x 10 metres ?  Do you know the volume and weight * of the megalithic stone that by floating it on mercury can be pushed by floating ?.

Do you realize that in order to move the megalithic stone 10 metre your channel has to be 20 metres long , to occupy the next 10 metres forward, and to empty the mercury already traveled 10 metres behind ?

*If you know after calculating, the weight and size of the megalithic stone that can fit on a 100 litre mercury filled narrow channel it may be around 5cm x 5cm x 5m.  Can be moved on a shoulder of one person several kilometres in one day with no mercury channel contraption.   Forget about your 'hundred of tonnes' on 100 litres Hg dream.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Externet

[mistermack]

I don't get the maths of the OP. 100 litres of mercury weighs about 1 1/3 tons, I just looked it up. So how do you shift ANY megalith with just 1 1/3 tons of mercury, bearing in mind that to float, the rock has to displace it's own weight? 

If I wanted to shift a stone weighing a ton, I would just rope it up to a few horses and drag it. 

[jlivingstonsg]

I can make the balbeck stone that weight around 800 tons float in some hundred liters mercury and move it a meter.

 

Is this  link information that show that they used mercury to move the stones?

https://mysteriousunexplainedhistory.com/what-are-liquid-mercury-pools-doing-underneath-ancient-pyramids/

 

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't get the maths of the OP.

100 litres of mercury weighs about 1 1/3 tons, I just looked it up.

So how do you shift ANY megalith with just 1 1/3 tons of mercury, bearing in mind that to float, the rock has to displace it's own weight? 

If I wanted to shift a stone weighing a ton, I would just rope it up to a few horses and drag it. 

You need to read this and learn.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-float-a-100-ton-boat-in-just-1-ton-of-water

 

Regards from Sweden

--------------------------------------------------------

[mistermack]

18 minutes ago, jlivingstonsg said:

You need to read this and learn.

That's ludicrous. Do you get all of your science from Quora ?  😅 

To get the rock to float you have to displace it's own weight. If you engineered a PERFECT seal around the rock you might be able to raise it with hydraulic pressure, but then you might as well use water. And you couldn't move it.             

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by mistermack

[Externet]

Editing Murphy's law' from above :

And never forget 'Murphy's law'  :   The nearest Hg mine will be a thousand kilometres from your megalythic stones, guarded by enemy armies that will want payment under the table and your first born, and the mine will deplete after 90 litres mined, short of your plans, will take much longer to transport the weight of the mercury so the megalythic moving contract will expire giving you zero income, nobody to buy the mercury or feed your hungry crew and transport donkeys.

It is life !  😩

Edited June 29, 2022 by Externet

[sethoflagos]

4 hours ago, jlivingstonsg said:

I can make the balbeck stone that weight around 800 tons float in some hundred liters mercury and move it a meter.

Uphill?

Anything but uphill is just a matter of finding the right lubricant. 

[npts2020]

Seems like it would be easier to strap rounded pieces of wood to the stone and just roll it to wherever you wanted to take it.

[exchemist]

11 hours ago, jlivingstonsg said:

The short answer would be they get the mercury from the mercury ores.  China had been able to extract mercury from the ore since about 5000 years ago. Mercury is commonly found in many parts of China, and the mercury ores usually consist of mercury sulphide and in ancient China, before they found out the method to extract mercury, they use it as a coloring because of the bright red color.

 

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-ancient-Chinese-get-all-of-their-mercury?share=1

Yes, cinnabar has been used for thousands of years as a pigment. What evidence is there of mercury metal being produced, at the scale of hundreds of litres, by the people that built megalithic monuments?

9 hours ago, jlivingstonsg said:

I can make the balbeck stone that weight around 800 tons float in some hundred liters mercury and move it a meter.

 

Is this  link information that show that they used mercury to move the stones?

https://mysteriousunexplainedhistory.com/what-are-liquid-mercury-pools-doing-underneath-ancient-pyramids/

 

You need to read this and learn.

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-float-a-100-ton-boat-in-just-1-ton-of-water

 

Regards from Sweden

--------------------------------------------------------

That's crap - as in fact one of the respondents in that Quora thread quickly points out. Floating indeed requires displacing an equivalent mass of the object. So a 20t megalith needs >20t of Hg to float it.  It is true that the density of , say, sandstone, is about 2.5 whereas that of Hg is 13.6, so Hg can float a volume of sandstone about 6 times its volume. But for a 20t stone that is still more than 3000litres of Hg.  And your 800t stone will need about 60t of Hg to make it float. 

Edited June 30, 2022 by exchemist

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Yes, cinnabar has been used for thousands of years as a pigment. What evidence is there of mercury metal being produced, at the scale of hundreds of litres, by the people that built megalithic monuments?

That's crap - as in fact one of the respondents in that Quora thread quickly points out. Floating indeed requires displacing an equivalent mass of the object. So a 20t megalith needs >20t of Hg to float it.  It is true that the density of , say, sandstone, is about 2.5 whereas that of Hg is 13.6, so Hg can float a volume of sandstone about 6 times its volume. But for a 20t stone that is still more than 3000litres of Hg.  And your 800t stone will need about 60t of Hg to make it float. 

Sorry, I meant 60 cubic metres, i.e. 60, 000 litres. 

[mistermack]

I think what the OP is getting at is that it would be theoretically possible to RAISE a rock, in a tight fitting container, with less than it's own weight of mercury, using the head of mercury to exert the required hydraulic pressure on the base of the rock. But the problem is that if it's in a tight fitting container, you can't move it, so lifting it doesn't get you anywhere. So the idea is to have a small gap in front of the rock, and pull the rock into that gap, so the mercury flows to the rear, and then excavate a new gap in front of the rock, and fill in the gap at the rear, hence inching forward bit by bit, constantly excavating in front, and filling in behind.

It's a far cry from floating a rock along in a canal of mercury, and of course, you need a flat route. I can't see it being possible in the real world, but I guess you could say it's theoretically possible. 

[swansont]

38 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I think what the OP is getting at is that it would be theoretically possible to RAISE a rock, in a tight fitting container, with less than it's own weight of mercury, using the head of mercury to exert the required hydraulic pressure on the base of the rock.

That violates Archimedes principle: an object will displace its own weight of the fluid. If it is less dense it will float, BUT there needs to be enough of the fluid present for this to happen. Otherwise it will bottom out. So 500 kg of mercury (a little less than 100L) will not float anything over 500 kg. exchemist notes this above.

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

That violates Archimedes principle: an object will displace its own weight of the fluid. If it is less dense it will float, BUT there needs to be enough of the fluid present for this to happen. Otherwise it will bottom out. So 500 kg of mercury (a little less than 100L) will not float anything over 500 kg. exchemist notes this above.

Yes agreed. +1 to mrmack who originally pointed it out and to exchemist for confirm it.

But also seth (+1) has noted that it might be a lubricant, which uses different mechanics.

However I know nothing about the possible use of mercury as a lubricant. I do know its meniscus is the 'other way up' as it doesn't wet many materials.

[mistermack]

34 minutes ago, swansont said:

That violates Archimedes principle: an object will displace its own weight of the fluid. If it is less dense it will float, BUT there needs to be enough of the fluid present for this to happen. Otherwise it will bottom out. So 500 kg of mercury (a little less than 100L) will not float anything over 500 kg. exchemist notes this above.

No that's wrong. To lift the rock, you just need sufficient pressure on the bottom surface of the rock. In a tight fitting container, you can get that with a smaller amount of mercury. That should be obvious. 

It appears to contradict Archimedes principle, but it doesn't, because in the tight fitting container, the sunken part of the rock IS displacing the same weight of mercury as it would in an open system. Because it's occupying the same volume as it would in an open system with the same surface level. 

[Ken Fabian]

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Seems like it would be easier to strap rounded pieces of wood to the stone and just roll it to wherever you wanted to take it.

This would be my preferred method for moving the regular building stones, a method for which there is some archaeological evidence (and some accompanying disagreement). https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~jason2/papers/pyramid.htm

 

These kinds of objects (of unknown purpose) have been found. I'd try wrapping leather straps around to hold it all together -

This style was "invented" as a possible solution and tried successfully - but there is no indication of Egyptians having used this type -

Edited June 30, 2022 by Ken Fabian

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

No that's wrong. To lift the rock, you just need sufficient pressure on the bottom surface of the rock. In a tight fitting container, you can get that with a smaller amount of mercury. That should be obvious. 

It appears to contradict Archimedes principle, but it doesn't, because in the tight fitting container, the sunken part of the rock IS displacing the same weight of mercury as it would in an open system. Because it's occupying the same volume as it would in an open system with the same surface level. 

Yes I think you are right. So long as the mercury rises up the side of the stone enough that the volume occupied by the stone below the surface is that which, if filled with mercury, would be equal to its mass, then it will start to float. 

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

No that's wrong. To lift the rock, you just need sufficient pressure on the bottom surface of the rock. In a tight fitting container, you can get that with a smaller amount of mercury. That should be obvious. 

If you had a rock on top of a fluid and there was no place for the fluid to go, then the rock would not sink. But that does not "lift" the rock.

But you already said (I only quoted part of your post) you have a gap, so no, this does not work.

 

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

It appears to contradict Archimedes principle, but it doesn't, because in the tight fitting container, the sunken part of the rock IS displacing the same weight of mercury as it would in an open system. Because it's occupying the same volume as it would in an open system with the same surface level. 

But, again, your scenario (and the one in the OP) is not a tight-fitting container.

[Externet]

19 hours ago, jlivingstonsg said:

I will build a narrow fit channel, for any large megalithic stone,

Do not forget  "any large" megalithic stone will have to be narrower than your narrow channel in order to fit in it, limiting its 'larginess' to something pole shaped like a broom stick floating in 100 litres of Hg.    What is the use of a not really heavy stone stick deserving that elaborated transportation ?  🙄

[sethoflagos]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

I think what the OP is getting at is that it would be theoretically possible to RAISE a rock, in a tight fitting container, with less than it's own weight of mercury, using the head of mercury to exert the required hydraulic pressure on the base of the rock. But the problem is that if it's in a tight fitting container, you can't move it, so lifting it doesn't get you anywhere. So the idea is to have a small gap in front of the rock, and pull the rock into that gap, so the mercury flows to the rear, and then excavate a new gap in front of the rock, and fill in the gap at the rear, hence inching forward bit by bit, constantly excavating in front, and filling in behind.

It's a far cry from floating a rock along in a canal of mercury, and of course, you need a flat route. I can't see it being possible in the real world, but I guess you could say it's theoretically possible. 

+1

It's the principle of hydraulic jacking (fracking employs this principle). If the lift height is arbitrarily small, the volume of jacking fluid required is also arbitrarily small.

[swansont]

15 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

+1

It's the principle of hydraulic jacking (fracking employs this principle). If the lift height is arbitrarily small, the volume of jacking fluid required is also arbitrarily small.

Except that in hydraulics you exert a force via a source of external pressure which is lacking here, so it's really not.  

[sethoflagos]

42 minutes ago, swansont said:

Except that in hydraulics you exert a force via a source of external pressure which is lacking here, so it's really not.  

I see this as a false dichotomy. Hydraulic head is hydraulic head whether it is generated statically by an elevated reservoir, or dynamically by some form of pump. The body of fluid physically engaged in the lift doesn't see any difference in the two. 

The OP employs a statically generated head via the depth of mercury in the canal. But this is by the by. Somewhere along the line mercury had to be raised to the level of the canal surface in order to fill it. There's always a pump in there somewhere to provide the initial input energy. 

[mistermack]

22 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The OP employs a statically generated head via the depth of mercury in the canal. But this is by the by. Somewhere along the line mercury had to be raised to the level of the canal surface in order to fill it. There's always a pump in there somewhere to provide the initial input energy. 

 You have to get the mercury to the trench. Presumably in ancient times that would be done by carrying it in vessels. (if this method ever was  used, which is unlikely). But since the objective is just to raise the stone just enough to clear the floor of the trench, you wouldn't need any pumping power, you would just keep pouring till the mercury was about one fifth  of the way up the side of the stone, since it's five times as dense as rock.

The only mercury you would need is enough to fill the edge gaps, which could be pretty minimal, and the theorised gap at the front. Then, as I posted earlier, you would pull the rock forward, so that the gap at the front closes, and an equal gap at the rear opens. You would then have to excavate a new gap at the front, and fill in the gap at the rear. 

It's not really a practical proposition, you would be losing mercury into the air gaps in the soil because of the high pressure at the bottom of the trench. 

It's just a thing that theoretically would work, but in practice would surely not be viable. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Except that in hydraulics you exert a force via a source of external pressure which is lacking here, so it's really not.  

The pressure is supplied by the head of mercury, which only has to be one fifth of the way up the side of the rock, because it's five times as dense. It just boils down the the pressure exerted on the bottom surface of the rock, and that is purely down to the depth of mercury. It doesn't matter if it's open or closed, the pressure on the bottom is just a result in the depth of mercury. 

[sethoflagos]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

 You have to get the mercury to the trench. Presumably in ancient times that would be done by carrying it in vessels. (if this method ever was  used, which is unlikely). But since the objective is just to raise the stone just enough to clear the floor of the trench, you wouldn't need any pumping power, you would just keep pouring till the mercury was about one fifth  of the way up the side of the stone, since it's five times as dense as rock.

Paring down to the raw basics, we have a system that transfers gravitational potential energy from a body of mercury to a body of rock. For the process to continue, the lost gravitational energy of the mercury must be restored by raising it from the bottom of the canal back to the desired surface level.

There's always a pump, or something that fulfils that function, even if it's somewhat obscured in the wording. The 1st Law demands it.

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

It's not really a practical proposition, you would be losing mercury into the air gaps in the soil because of the high pressure at the bottom of the trench. 

It's just a thing that theoretically would work, but in practice would surely not be viable. 

 And yet you can find log flume rides at funfairs all around the world. I'm not seeing any significant difference in principle here.

All the OP is really stating is that if you sit a 998 mm cube of granite in a 1000 mm cubic hole, you can float the granite with less than a litre of mercury, which should be an interesting thought if it hadn't previously occurred.

Personally, I find this site entertaining when it presents such 'theoretical' surprises.

The real-life practical feasibility of transporting stone monoliths in a mercury flume is an entirely different kettle of fish. Would you want to do it even if you could? Possibly not, for a number of reasons.