It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Shane sorry, but the name Adam doesn't mean what you said.

Adam: אָדָם in standard Hebrew, actually translates as: Earth, Man, Soil or Light Brown. The idea that it began to mean something else as in "to blush" is from a much later date. In fact, the term in Ancient Hebrew was: ha adamah which means the ground or earth. Then the term "man" was added due to God creating man from the ground.

The first posters questions, are very much valid.




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Shane sorry, but the name Adam doesn't mean what you said.

Adam: אָדָם in standard Hebrew, actually translates as: Earth, Man, Soil or Light Brown. The idea that it began to mean something else as in "to blush" is from a much later date. In fact, the term in Ancient Hebrew was: ha adamah which means the ground or earth. Then the term "man" was added due to God creating man from the ground.

The first posters questions, are very much valid.


Well, to maybe clarify this misconception, both you and Maddness have, we can check on something NOT NOTED yet.

First, I will acknowledge, this is one of those difficulties that is evident with the English translation.

Second, Adam, does not mean what either of you have implied.

Man means what you have both implied.

www.eliyah.com...


127 'adamah ad-aw-maw' from 119; soil (from its general redness):--country, earth, ground, husband(-man) (-ry), land.


This along with a vast amount of "Other" definitions make up the VARIOUS APPLICATIONS of the word MAN, which I have no difficulties in agreeing with both of you about.

I'll Take your words. "Man translates as: Earth, Man, Soil or Light Brown."

Yeah it fits the definition

But both You and Maddness have addressed Adam, not Man

www.eliyah.com...


119 'adam aw-dam' to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120 'adam aw-dawm' from 119; ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
121 'Adam aw-dawm' the same as 120; Adam the name of the first man, also of a place in Palestine:--Adam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1893 Hebel heh'-bel the same as 1892; Hebel, the son of Adam:--Abel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5731 `Eden ay'-den the same as 5730 (masculine); Eden, the region of Adam's home:--Eden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8352 Sheth shayth from 7896; put, i.e. substituted; Sheth, third son of Adam:--Seth, Sheth.


No where, does Adam, refer to what you have noted, and it also does not refer to anything near what Man covers.


In fact, the term in Ancient Hebrew was: ha adamah which means the ground or earth. Then the term "man" was added due to God creating man from the ground.


This makes me wonder a bit. Are your certain what you are expressing here, means what your suggest.

As we now "all" know, adamah means man, in the English. I will never argue this, since this is fact.

You throw in another thing in your "Quoted" section here "ha adamah".

What does this mean? It is a New Application altogether.

Ha adamah means "The Man". Not "Man" in a general sense. It is a specific person singled out by the use of "ha".


So maybe by now, we have a bunch of people staring at their screens thinking, What is up with this crap. Who cares?

Well we should, if we have any interest in the reference material we may happen to place our faith in, such as the Bible, but we must also, not be blind to the difficulties faced by the Translators themselves.

Here is a simple Example, MAN

There are over 80 various words in the Hebrew, that all mean MAN in the English.

But would it be worth discussing this better, and a Topic specific to Translation of the Bible?

This was a Topic about the Pyramid afterall.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Shane

You once said "ask" if I had anymore questions...

Well I do actually...

Years ago I found a reference to Jesus that indicated he said once he was gone they would misunderstand his teachings.

It was over 20 years ago and I was sure it was in one of the gospels but don't know where to look. Any clues?



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Adam is a loan word in Hebrew
it is original in Sumerian
and it meant originally "habitation" before 2500BCE
when it became a loan word in Akkadian it meant "steppe dweller" before 2000BCE
it was after this that your Hebrew version takes over around 1000BCE
psd.museum.upenn.edu...



posted on Aug, 17 2006 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Adam is a loan word in Hebrew
it is original in Sumerian
and it meant originally "habitation" before 2500BCE
when it became a loan word in Akkadian it meant "steppe dweller" before 2000BCE
it was after this that your Hebrew version takes over around 1000BCE
psd.museum.upenn.edu...


Well of course it is you silly pagan deity.


Where do you think the Sumerians come from? They are decendants of Noah

Heres a link referencing the matter, and at the Bottom, is an excellent reference map of the Region.

www.freemaninstitute.com...


And was this also not pointed out in the lexicon offered for Adam?

5731 `Eden ay'-den the same as 5730 (masculine); Eden, the region of Adam's home:--Eden.

It only makes sense, oh wise and holy one. Why else do the languages and sources of lore and legend all flow as they do?


But I would have thought a deity such as you would have already been aware of that.


Ciao

Shane

P.S. Oh, and I have always had a question for a embarassed god such as yourself.

How did you feel, when Nebuchadnezzar turned from you and embraced the Lord God Almighty, (Your Ultimate Boss)? Hahahaha

Sorry, just having fun, with your Fallen deity moniker.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   


Where do you think the Sumerians come from? They are decendants of Noah

you seem to be confused
Noah is a Hebrew name
the hebrew language didn't exist until 1200BCE at which point the sumerian civilisation had been dead and buried for over 1500 years
and Marduk is a babylonian name
Bel Marduk is a babylonian god

i expect that you think every kid in mexico called Jesus is the messiah as well ?

try and get a stronger grip on reality
your last post could well be entered in the A.M.A journal as evidence that psycological damage is a result of listening to too many priests


oh and in case you didnt realise it the sumerian version of Noah (i.e. the original) Ziusudra didn't have any children


[edit on 18-8-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane
Where do you think the Sumerians come from? They are decendants of Noah

Heres a link referencing the matter, and at the Bottom, is an excellent reference map of the Region.
www.freemaninstitute.com...

Oh dear. You oughta take that link with a whole bucketload of salt.

The Sumerians, who didn't think they were descended from Ham or Shemp or even Curly (but were made by the council of gods) were around before Noah. They were leaving each other little love notes in Akkadian for centuries before Noah got caught in the river when he forgot to stop and ask directions.

And they were all speaking and writing the same languages (different than Hebrew) before and after Moses announced that his deity had gotten mad at everyone and sent a worldwide flood to wipe them out.



How did you feel, when Nebuchadnezzar turned from you and embraced the Lord God Almighty, (Your Ultimate Boss)? Hahahaha

Biblical scholars say it didn't happen to Nebuchadnezzar; that this particular name has been mistranslated in the Bible. The real groveler-converter seems to be Nabonidus:
www.livius.org...

So I think the pagan deity will say "nice try, but Neb never converted!"



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Alright enough is enough...

Why join a website in the interest of learning and talking and things, when all you people do is try to disprove others? Byrd i'm talking to you.

So of you read some material and think you know the truth of the matter, but you really don't. Just because an Egyptologist says soemthing is true doesn't mean that it is. Just because these 'experts' are the only show in town doesn't make them right.

Its amazing how little we know about ancient times, and even more amazing how much we claim to know based on conjecture, situation and circumstance.

For instance, a geologist says the Sphinx was made in 7,000bc or before, yet nobody will accept that because of the history current day man has laid out...doesnt matter if the history is accurate, it would be too much to switch things around and recognize the truth. Historians don't want history re-written, especially the dawn of civilization becuase it would ruin all the work they have done.

holla if ya hear me



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
Alright enough is enough...

Why join a website in the interest of learning and talking and things, when all you people do is try to disprove others? Byrd i'm talking to you.

So of you read some material and think you know the truth of the matter, but you really don't. Just because an Egyptologist says soemthing is true doesn't mean that it is. Just because these 'experts' are the only show in town doesn't make them right.


Pardon me?

Please, Outerspacewhatever, "experts" are called "experts" for a reason. And though you're right that it "doesn't make them right," at least not all the time, it most certainly doesn't make them wrong.

It seems clear to me that the longer a person looks into a thing, the more that person has a chance to learn something about that thing. Now, looking deeply into Hancock's, Cremo's, vonDaniken's, Hapgood's, or Sitchen's books, will give you the opportunity to learn something alright. You'll have an opportunity to learn something about Hancock, Cremo vonDaniken, Hapgood and Sitchen.

It's the people that actually take the time to achieve the necessary goals that allow them to actually examine the artifacts, and hunt (and find) more artifacts, that are in the best position to theorize.

Anyone on Earth that disagrees with that logic is just blowing smoke.

Byrd has shown herself to be extremely well informed on the subject of ancient civilizations. What, beyond your own ignorance, have you shown?

If you joined ATS "...in the interest of learning and talking and things...", then you've accomplished the last parts first. Please begin work toward accomplishing the first part.


Originally posted by OuterSpaceMasterIts amazing how little we know about ancient times, and even more amazing how much we claim to know based on conjecture, situation and circumstance.


What's amazing is that so many people that know so little about ancient times get so huffy when their parrotings of the pseudoscientific "theories" of admitted liars and con men are shot down by people that actually know a thing or two here on ATS.


Originally posted by OuterSpaceMasterFor instance, a geologist says the Sphinx was made in 7,000bc or before, yet nobody will accept that because of the history current day man has laid out...doesnt matter if the history is accurate, it would be too much to switch things around and recognize the truth. Historians don't want history re-written, especially the dawn of civilization becuase it would ruin all the work they have done.

Schoch's estimate of the age of the Sphinx, which only applies to the front of the monument, incidentally, has other explanations. Are we to ignore these other explanations? Why? Because you like freckles?

What makes you say here that "nobody will accept that..."? Who is "nobody" and why do you believe this?

Historians have yet to write the history of Man. They have only written what has been deduced. But this is true of all history, even modern history. Besides, if "historians don't want history rewritten...." then why are historians still, to this day, rewriting history? What is the use of even being a historian if you don't want history rewritten? That's all historians do!

Maybe you should scout around this section of the site before you wade in shooting from the lip at an acknowledged expert in residence here. Think of it this way, you (or somebody) should come up with ideas that are not so easily disproven. Then perhaps the ideas won't be so quicklly dismissed.

Harte



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
In my circles when we strongly disagree we strap on some armor, grab a sword and go at it. The one who tires first is right for the day


Sadly that is one of the things I have noticed on this board, though I suppose it is less here than most places, but there seems to be an almost pathological need to be right


I suppose its the nature of the savage beast that is man... "I'm right your wrong and if you don't believe me I will bop you on the head, kill your chickens or what ever it takes all the way to Jihads...

The funny thing is that those that try to disprove something really don't have a leg to stand on. Can you show me a picture that there are no UFO's? Can you show me that God does not exist? No of course not, al you have is testimony of "expert" and accepted science yet how many times in history has that been knocked down? Galileo spent a lot of time in Jail. Even in modern times radical scientific notions have been met with ridicule sensorship and even death of the scientist... yet now Nasa and the Military are filing patents on the same ideas...

Skeptics always tout free speech and "open your mind" yet most I have run across rarely have an open mind. Yet if points are any indication, they spend a LOT of hours debunking everything and everyone.

To me the theory that the Annunaki ruled Earth and created us genetically is no different from the Christian theory that God did it... both the same story really, just different players. I can find just as much evidence for one as the other [actually more for the former but thats another story
)


"Let God kill him that does not know, yet presumes to show the other the way!" This quote from a Persian dervish in the movie and videotape of "Meetings with Remarkable Men" by Gurdjieff (1963) pretty much summarizes my feelings toward the whole area of research science. It's a jungle out there. The dividing line between truth, fiction, what is best, and what sells has never been less clearly defined. Since the advent of the digital information explosion, the sea of information has been growing at a pace that few can follow. However, if we are to be responsible and seek the truth, we must persevere. I am dedicated to finding the truth.

by

Patrick G. Bailey, Ph. D.
Vice President, Institute for New Energy
Los Altos, CA 94023-0201.

Presented at the
Second International Symposium on New Energy (2nd ISNE)
May 12-15, 1994




SOURCE



Now go ye forth and play nice. Stamping out ignorance with Army Boots doesn't work
Neither did the Inquisition or the book burnings starting in Alexandria



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
Why join a website in the interest of learning and talking and things, when all you people do is try to disprove others? Byrd i'm talking to you.


It's known as the Scientific Method. Archeology fits within this method. Basically, the idea is you set down a hypothesis and this is then tested. The weight of the evidence for and against it is then taken, so a conclusion can be gained from them.

If someone is constantly trying to disprove something then maybe it is because, their evidence is greater than the evidence you've given? If you believe Byrd to be wrong, show us why and do not make such posts which do nothing more than to de-rail a thread.

If Byrd is wrong, show us. The burden of proof is on the accuser. This is you, not Byrd. The burden of proof in this thread, falls on those who disagree with main-stream archeology and to some extent anthropology. You can say, Byrd is wrong all you like but show us.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster
Alright enough is enough...

Why join a website in the interest of learning and talking and things, when all you people do is try to disprove others? Byrd i'm talking to you.


Okay, alot in this topic I can't follow. I'm not a pyramidologist (although I am fascinated by them), I have absolutely no knowledge of the ancient Hebrews....however I do know that Sumer was nothing but dust on the wind by the time Judaism was blossoming.

If Byrd hadn't challenged this everyone here who didn't know would have been misinformed and so would be replying in ignorance of the truth. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ATS about "Denying Ignorance"?

If wrong claims aren't challenged then we would still think the world was flat, we would still think enslaving others because of their ethnic origin was fine, we would still think that everything in the entire universe revolves around us.

And Byrd isn't the subject matter expert for nothing.



posted on Aug, 18 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   


The Sumerians, who didn't think they were descended from Ham or Shemp or even Curly (but were made by the council of gods) were around before Noah. They were leaving each other little love notes in Akkadian for centuries before Noah got caught in the river

the sumerians used the sumerian language
the akkadians used the akkadian language
the babylonians used the babylonian language
in that order
they all used the same alphabet but they were seperate from each other in the same way that english french and spanish use the same alphabet but are different

all three mesopotamians languages are older than Hebrew
all three languages have stories about a hero who survived a flood
Ziusudra, Upnapishtim and Atrahasis respectively



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OuterSpaceMaster

So of you read some material and think you know the truth of the matter, but you really don't. Just because an Egyptologist says soemthing is true doesn't mean that it is. Just because these 'experts' are the only show in town doesn't make them right.


If a doctor tells you you;re seriously ill and need an urgent operation, do you believe him? Or do you dismiss his prognosis because he's only an expert and that doesn't make him right?




For instance, a geologist says the Sphinx was made in 7,000bc or before, yet nobody will accept that because of the history current day man has laid out...


No, but other geologists dispute the interpretation of the evidence. So who's right? In any case, Schoch's argument still only places the Sphinx around 4-5,000BC



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Hey Marduk

Come and play over here. It will be for this "SPECIFIC" topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see Some "Others" have impressions in respects to this.

AND I WANT TO SEE YOU PARTAKE ALSO BYRD.!!!!

Edit: (Some comments made by some of you above, have also been addressed at the other topic. Do visit. Offer. Contribute.)

Just for the case of settling this matter.

Ciao

Shane

P.S. The First reply Marduk was answered, there. You can pickup on it if you wish.
Edit: (And I noted the nice flow starting to be formed in your second response Marduk)

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Shane]



posted on Aug, 19 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

If a doctor tells you you;re seriously ill and need an urgent operation, do you believe him? Or do you dismiss his prognosis because he's only an expert and that doesn't make him right?


Usually I would go for a second opinion first before letting him put the knife to me. I could tell you stories like the one in Florida where they cut off a man's good leg not the gangreen one by mistake...but thats for another room

Don't forget that doctors only "practice" medicine...




No, but other geologists dispute the interpretation of the evidence. So who's right? In any case, Schoch's argument still only places the Sphinx around 4-5,000BC



Most likely the first one because he must have found something to make him think it IS 7,000 years old. The only way to disprove current thinking is to gather new evidence and challenge what is considered accepted fact. There are hundreds of examples in history in many fields of study where our accepted concepts have been thrown out the window by some radical idea.

[edit on 19-8-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scolecite

6. The Great Pyramid is the most accuratly aligned structure in existence.


I have not read through the entire thread, and not sure if this has been addressed, but i would like to say that it is not that hard to determine which way is north, and they most certainly had the technological advancements to put a stick in the ground and follow its shadow throughout the day, showing them which way was north.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
"" Ancient & Lost Civilizations » Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.""
in my former posts in this thread.

I think the best proof of egyptians building their own pyramids is laid out here, in this page of dr. Lehner, one of the leading experts on ancient Egypt timelines :
www.aeraweb.org...

Next, the quite important answer to an earlier question of Shane :

Yes, the blocks are smaller, the higher you come up the layers (courses) of the Great Pyramid.

See : Study of mr Prevos essay, written by Dori Freeman.


page1/16 : I was also able to find a couple of blemishes in Prevos’ methods, however I feel that his study is one of the most accurate reconstructions that one can find.
--snip--
page 2/16 : There were approximately 209 layers, or courses, to the Great Pyramid. Many pyramid researchers noticed that as the levels increase (from the ground up), the blocks tend to get smaller, so the larger stones tend to be towards the bottom. Therefore, it is easy to infer that the height of the lower courses tends to be greater than the upper courses. [7, p. 74].
page 16/16 : Reference 7. P. Hodges, How the Pyramids Were Built, Element Books, Great Britain, 1989.


Important, because this above last statement gives more importance to the following,
Many possibly new, Pyramid construction theories, © by LaBTop,2006.

Note and remember, that one can now conclude also, that the highest placed blocks up the pyramid, were also the lightests!
Thus, an ancient egyptian lever worker, needed less force to operate his lever, than up till now assumed.
And since the blocks became slightly less high, higher up, he could increasingly easier step up one layer, the higher he ascended the pyramid.

Another important note : we can conclude that there was no form of full standardization in use, since all blocks were not the same size. Perhaps a per-level or multiple-levels standard size ?
This strongly suggests a "concern-later" tactic utilized while building the Great Pyramid.
Which contradicts the seemingly perfect planning and execution of all or most of the Great Pyramid building tasks by their architects.
Should they have had another plan in mind for the decreasing block sizes, while building higher up?



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   
1. My proposed 2/3 Ramp / 1/3 Lever/Jack-up combination, methods.
( Lever-ing revamped and expanded. )




Quote's used from the above essay written by Dori Freeman, who studied the pyramid theories and calculations from the australian engineer, mr Prevos :


page 4/16 : Prevos prefers the use of levers for vertical and even horizontal transport while constructing the courses of the pyramid. He refers to vertical transport as “jacking-up” and elects Hodges’ “paddling” method for horizontal transport. Prevos uses levers made completely out of wood, which make more sense than the levers with metal feet that Hodges proposed.
I feel that he used the wooden levers without the feet because the only known metal used by the ancient Egyptians was copper—a very soft metal . This would obviously not hold up against a 2.6+ ton limestone mass.
The length of the levers is 2 meters, the size of the fulcrum is 10 centimeters by 10 centimeters and, the wood was tapered so that the men “jacking-up” the stones would have an easier grip.
“When assuming that the leverage point is at 0.1 meters from the end, and the maximum downward force to be applied by one person is 600 N, the upward force on the other end is 1.9 * 600 / 0.1 = 11,400 N ."


1 Newton (N) = 0.09806 kgf (kilogram-force).
That's at the most 58.8 kgf, applied in a downwards arc by an ancient egyptian leverer, by hanging/leaning with all his weight on the end of his 2 meter long lever-handle, while the tip of the other, 11 cm long, short end, is slid under a 2.600 kg limestone block, enabling him to apply an upward force of 1117.9 kgf to the underside of the block and thus lift it up 10 cm.
Four leverers could thus lift a block of about 4 ton easily 10 cm above floor level. And then two of them then shove each a 10 cm thick, 120 cm long plank under the elevated block with one of their feet, and all four released then their lever handles again, so the block sunk on the 2 planks and stood now 10 cm higher as before.

Still one question stands. Where did they found the space needed under a block which stood on any of the pyramids course floors, to slide their lever tips in? The first one of a 8 time repeated jack-up procedure is meant here. The 7 next jack-ups have lever tip sliding space enough.
They needed to rise the block at least 73 cm higher, to start then the block sliding procedure onto the next course floor level.
After 8 jack-ups their blocks stood 80 cm higher.

Did any Great Pyramid researcher ever find 2 or more pre-carved short slits on any side of any or all of the building blocks?
Slits carved in blocks especially, to slide a lever's lifting tip in, and the lever's fulcrum (leverage point) could then rest in front of the slit, on the course ridge floor, while the leverer applied his body weight on the end of the handle.



posted on Aug, 20 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
1a. My proposed Lever / Leather Strip+Stepping Stone, muscle release method combination.

E. Moyer, Some Perspectives on Pyramid Chronology, 10 December 2005,
www.gizapyramid.com...
Read mr Moyer's essay later, after you read the following.

The following explanation is a possible solution for the problem mr Moyer has with the max. force an ancient egyptian could have applied to his lever. He thinks they could have applied no more than 267 Newton ( = 26.2 kgf ) :


page 5/16 : Apparently, Ernest Moyer does not agree with the lever usage, with respect to the amount of people it would take to lift a 2.6-ton element. He states that 600 Newtons is equivalent to about 135 lbs, or 60 kilograms, of force. Moyer then questions how a 5’5”, 150 lbs, ancient Egyptian could manage to exert such a high force. He sets up his own scenario with the builders lifting 60 lbs of force, or about 267 Newtons. The 60 lbs is conservative even to Hodges’ own experiments where he believes that a man should be able to apply 80 lbs of pressure. However, Hodges does make a point in saying that “…the effort is only required in short bursts, and in rhythm” .
Moyer’s guess seems a lot more feasible, but we will not concern ourselves with Moyer’s observations, as most of them are pretty far-fetched. We will see later on that four men are still used to “jack-up” the 2.6-ton stones.


The architects could have given a handy tip to the leverers, to use thick, strong leather-strip loops of about 1 meter length, with one half of a 20 kg heavy, split in half stone-ball, knotted in the bottom of the loop, with its flat side up, this stone to use as a foot-rest.

While a carved out groove in the round side of the half moon shaped stone held the leather loop in place, so the stone would not easily slip out.
As 2 added profits, the leather strip was better held in place, and protected against wear and tear by the stone's curvature.
A simple flat stone would have 2 sharp sides which could easily cut the leather strip when body weight was applied.

When a leverer hung that leather strip in a groove at the end of the handle of his lever, slid the other, short lever end under the limestone block, and stepped/jumped with his foot in between the leather loop and on the flat top side of the stone weight, he was then utilizing his own bodyweight, say 70 kg, plus the 20 kg of the stone weight, to force the handle of his lever down, with more than 1/3 more force than in the above calculation. He needed nearly no muscle power in this case.
By far enough kilogram-force ( 90 kgf = 917.8 Newton, instead of the above 58.8 kgf = 600 Newton) to easily lift the 2.6 ton limestone block, together with his other 3 mates, who did exactly the same, every time the block needed to be jacked-up another 10 centimeter.


page 4/16 : The actual bending stress in the lever will be 6.84 N/mm2 which is allowable for most timber.
Three levers would be sufficient to lift a 2.6 [ton] element, but for reasons of stability four levers have to be used.”



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join