How would YOU build the Temple of Jupiter?

[Realitycheck]

This is, without a doubt, the greatest wonder the world has ever known, yet the least well-known, primarily because it is controlled by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Read the 5 page slide show on the following webpage to see everything you need to know about its construction, what sets it apart from all the other wonders that try to come close, and how nobody can truly describe anything about it that flies in the face of reason.

 

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5b1.htm

[YT2095]

how would I do it using their technology?

 

simple, you use sand/rocks and build it up so you`re always working at Ground level, then when you`ve put all the top parts on, you take away the sand and rocks to leave your structure.

 

Hardly Rocket Science!

[JohnF]

Moving the large blocks:

 

What about turning the square profile of the blocks in to a round one. By fixing lengths of wood along the sides of the block you can effectively turn them in to long tubes; or almost tubes. This would allow the blocks to be rolled from one location to another.

 

This thread should be in Engineering.

[JohnF]

Moving the large blocks:

 

What about turning the square profile of the blocks in to a round one. By fixing lengths of wood along the sides of the block you can effectively turn them in to long tubes; or almost tubes. This would allow the blocks to be rolled from one location to another.

 

This thread should be in Engineering.

 

Sorry agentchange. I figured the moderators would have spotted my comment and decided if it should be moved.

[Realitycheck]

Considering the immense mass of these particular blocks, I highly doubt that wood could help you in any way.

[Sisyphus]

The same way all those big ancient structures were built, I'd imagine. Rolled very slowly over the biggest logs you can find, acting as conveyor belt. Roman architects were extremely ingenious and had unlimited budgets for this sort of thing.

[JohnF]

Considering the immense mass of these particular blocks, I highly doubt that wood could help you in any way.

 

Don't forget that any wood that is attached would be in the form of planks probably. In that form it has very great compression strength unlike a log.

 

Another way to look at it is that if the block of stone is 64 feet by 12 feet on one side then that gives you 110592 square inches.

 

Now I have assumed the ton you are using is the one that weighs 2240 lbs.

 

At 800 ton that's 1792000 lbs which is only 16 lbs per square inch.

[Realitycheck]

My calculations came out a lot differently, but you raised a good point, which is something that I had somewhat anticipated. That is why I asked this here.

 

SF per stone 10752 (12x14x64)

SI per stone 1548288

Tons per stone 300

Pounds per stone 600,000

Pounds per CI .39

 

Hardly the density of limestone, as this measures out to 674 lbs./cf while the actual density of limestone is about 150 lbs./cf. If you upgrade it to granite, it still comes out to about 160 lbs./cf.

 

Thanks for your help. Those are still some pretty big numbers though.

[Pangloss]

The Wikipedia also has a pretty good writeup on the temple here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalbek

[Pangloss]

I read over the article. Interesting stuff. I'd heard of the temple before, but I've never read a whole lot about it. It's really a shame that it's in such a difficult to reach place.

 

Ancient Rome is a hobby of mine, by the way, and I've read many of the ancient authors (Plutarch is a particular interest). The questions raised in the last couple of pages of the article are really interesting to me.

 

What's so interesting about this is not just the questions regarding their construction methods, but the lack of documentation for those reasons. By the time that temple was built the Romans had a long tradition of historical documentation.

 

Of course, by that time they had also enveloped a new tradition: Manipulating history for political purposes. I couldn't help but wonder if one reason for the lack of information about Baalbek in ancient sources is political in nature.

[JohnF]

My calculations came out a lot differently, but you raised a good point, which is something that I had somewhat anticipated. That is why I asked this here.

 

We arrived at different figures because...

 

Your first calculation is for the volume of the stone whereas it should be for the surface area.

 

12 x 64 = 768 sq feet 768 x 144 = 110592 sq inches

14 x 64 = 896 sq feet 896 x 144 = 129024 sq inches

 

I chose the surface area that would translate to the most weight per square inch to give a wost case.

 

The next part you will need to decide, as from what I read the 33 foot stones weighed 300 tons but the 64 foot stone weighed 800 tons.

 

But at 12 x 14 x 64 giving 10752 cubic feet

At 800 'short tons' that gives 1600000 lbs

I'm in the UK and a ton here is 2240 lbs (a long ton)

 

So each cubic foot weighs in at almost 149lbs which comes much closer to what you say the density of limestones is. This would indicate your original estimates on size and weight are correct.

 

So that leaves us with 1600000 lbs spread over 110592 square inches giving almost 14.5 lbs per square inch.

 

This was a bit of a cheat on my side though because what I am suggesting is that they turned the rectangular profile of the stone in to a more rounded one, probably an elipse. Any wood that is attached won't cover the whole surface area. The wood needs to be fixed so that each layer covers less surface area than the one before.

 

The following will give you a guide as to how the weight distribution changes...

 

12 x 64 = 14.5 lbs per square inch

8 x 64 = 21.7 lbs per square inch

3 x 64 = 58 lbs per square inch

 

...this is static weight though. As soon as you start rolling the stone other stresses will become apparant and also the downward force on the wood will reduce.

 

If this method was used then I would expect they chose to make an elipse of the profile rather than a circle. This would give them an advantage when pushing it up an incline. As long as the incline was not too steep and the elipse was the right shape then they would have 2 rest areas per rotation where the stone will not roll back.

 

The method also allows for ropes fixed at the top of an incline to run down the hill, under the stone, over it and back up the hill. This gives them the opportunity to pull from above and push from below.

[Realitycheck]

I was in kind of a hurry and lacking sleep when I calculated that. So you really think they could do all that back then? You think they would go through all the trouble to trim 64' long blocks of stone with an ellipse on side, making it that much heavier, when it had to fit perfectly into a rectangular slot with no room for error? I happen to know something else about the construction of this site. In one or some of these blocks, are holes drilled exactly, say, 1/2" by 3' deep. Also, how would you even lift these 800 ton blocks on one side to get the logs under it, to get the ropes under it? How would you trim the bottom side of it, much less cut away the bottom side of it from the quarry in the first place? Also, according to the author, these giant blocks were cut from granite, making it much harder to chip away from, though that would make it easier for them to handle the stresses. Limestone probably would not handle it.

[Realitycheck]

Also, how would they tie all of these ropes to the block in a manner that would enable them to pull an 800 block of stone, overcoming the friction of them rolling over the logs which I highly doubt would support the weight of the block in the first place. Getting them to roll under an 800 ton block of stone would really be difficult, even with 40,000 people pulling on the ropes. The weight distribution may be 14.5 lbs/si when it is lying flat on the ground, but when you concentrate the weight distribution of the block to only the contact area where the logs meet the stone, that makes it more like 184-10,000 lbs./si, using 12" logs. If you have an uninterrupted series of logs, then it would be somewhere around 184 lbs./si, at best, excluding the friction factor. However, based on the lack of actual evidence, there is probably a way to do it.

[JohnF]

They wouldn't make the stone with any curve; just make them as they are seen as blocks. The curve on each side is added in the form of planks. They would attach to one face first then push the block over on to it so that it kind of rocked. Then they would attach to the three other faces. The planks wouldn't even need to run the whole length of the block. They could just create a curved surround for it at either end in effect making elliptical wheels with the block of stone as the axel. The holes you mention may be fixing points for the planks that build up the elliptical profile.

 

As for the logs underneath; not part of my solution. You are mixing two solutions here; the one I propose and the one proposed by Sisyphus.

[Realitycheck]

So what you are saying is to roll the blocks from the quarry with ellipses of lumber attached to the sides. I have a hard time seeing how the attached lumber or the fasteners (rope?) hold up. After all it is 14'X12'X64'. Why not just carve the block into a crude cylinder and roll it to the site? Of course, this way you would have to grade a rolling surface 64'X1/3 mile. Without grading it semi-perfectly, the stone most likely fractures 80-100% of the time. To me, this sounds a whole lot more doable, except that the one 1,000 ton stone that didn't make it all of the way out of the quarry is pictured and carved into a very square block. Well, maybe since it is 12' wide, it has enough structural support, so we just tip it over on its side 150 times till you get to the site without breaking it.

[Realitycheck]

Your plan does cushion the impact of flipping it over on its side 150 times, though.

[JohnF]

So what you are saying is to roll the blocks from the quarry with ellipses of lumber attached to the sides. I have a hard time seeing how the attached lumber or the fasteners (rope?) hold up. After all it is 14'X12'X64'. Why not just carve the block into a crude cylinder and roll it to the site? Of course, this way you would have to grade a rolling surface 64'X1/3 mile. Without grading it semi-perfectly, the stone most likely fractures 80-100% of the time. To me, this sounds a whole lot more doable, except that the one 1,000 ton stone that didn't make it all of the way out of the quarry is pictured and carved into a very square block. Well, maybe since it is 12' wide, it has enough structural support, so we just tip it over on its side 150 times till you get to the site without breaking it.

 

Don't think of the timber being attached to the side; in it's final configuration the timber construction is wrapped around the stone. Think of the timber construction as a 'wooden tyre' that could even slip over the end of the block.

 

Since the largest of the blocks wasn't moved we can't really discuss it properly. The three smaller ones were moved though so apply the same method to those.

 

The advantages of the 'wooden tyre' are that you only need construct two of them. Once you have moved one block of stone they can be removed for use with another block of stone. Once you have got the whole thing moving you will require much less energy to keep it going; all you need do is equal the opposing forces of friction and gravity.

 

The initial roll off would be easier too as you only need to move the centre of gravity past the pivot point; for an elliptical wheel once past this point it would roll on a little under it's own weight; you then just keep it rolling.

 

You could coil ropes around the stone between these wheels without any difficulty. This would then provide the first part of a pulley; For every 2 feet you pull the rope the stone block would move one foot.

 

It also means you would only have to prepare two narrower paths for transport; perhaps about 8 feet wide.

 

Moving the stones from the quarry to where the wheels would be fitted might have been done by sliding them on gravel. All loose particles act like a fluid under the right conditions so the stones would have been 'floated' out of the quarry.

 

This may not be the method used but a method was used; the stones were moved.

[JohnF]

The image I have included here may help to illustrate how a rectangular section of stone could form the axel for two wheels.

 

With regards to the strength of wood, the Giant Sequoia can weigh as much as 1300 tons. A proportion of that will be in the root system but there will still be a significant amount of weight above ground level. The point is that the wood at ground level can clearly hold many hundreds of tons of tree above it. The compression strength of wood is very high.

[Rocket Man]

how would you build the temple of jupiter

 

depends on how clever my alchemists are with hydrogen

[Realitycheck]

You just have to check out this pic. (Click to enlarge, isn't responding to enlargement attempts.) How do you lift the stone 12 feet into the air?

 

 

[JohnF]

How do you lift the stone 12 feet into the air?

 

I'm glad you say it's 12 feet. Lifting them about that distance isn't a major problem; I had been thinking it was about 30 feet for some reason and that height was giving me problems I couldn't overcome. I find it hard to believe that nobody has worked out how to lift them though. What is your interest in this, are you just curious or is this a serious subject of study for you?

[Realitycheck]

Just curiosity. I've put a small amount of research into it over the years, just out of curiosity. It seems like every time I turn my back on it, something else pops up that makes me change my mind.

[insane_alien]

I'm glad you say it's 12 feet. Lifting them about that distance isn't a major problem; I had been thinking it was about 30 feet for some reason and that height was giving me problems I couldn't overcome. I find it hard to believe that nobody has worked out how to lift them though. What is your interest in this, are you just curious or is this a serious subject of study for you?

 

30 feet(10 meters) wouldn't be a complicated lift. just need lots of wood, manpower and patience.

 

first thing you do is use lots of people to lever up one side of the stone, place a wooden block under it, jack up the otherside and do the same, probably hammer a few in the middle, repeat until its at the desired height and slide it off onto the stone supports.

[Realitycheck]

Let's say that all of these people who are lifting are pretty tough and can lift 200 lbs. each.

800 tons, 1,600,000 lbs., that's 8,000 tough guys that have to all somehow get in there to lift it.

 

If they use steel cable and iron compound pullies, that will probably cut down on the weight factor. Of course, the pulley will have to be attached to an iron hoist with an iron track for the pulley to slide down. The amount of rope necessary to lift 800 tons is unconscionable.

[insane_alien]

they don't have to lift it. they only have to lever up on side by a few centimeters/inches. its not as if they're just using their fingers. look up levers and why wheel barrows allow you to lift heavy objects.