Can this structure stand without internal support?

O

Oystein

Registered Senior Member
I saw this on a geology forum and everyone there seems to think this is free-standing, balanced rocks.

I say no way. This collection of rocks cannot stand without either being cemented/glued or some sort of metal rod/bar inserted thru each piece. The upper arch has no lateral supports to keep it from collapsing.

What say you?


16298874_238401606613698_8292100222074743109_n.jpg
 
Oystein said:
Of course that's true. Structures 101, high school or college freshman.
So, you must think that the entire structure could stand as it is. I know it can't.
Click to expand...
The UPPER arch (the part you asked about) can free stand. The lower part - the part that is not an arch - cannot.
 
Inappropriate Behavior: Assuming the worst of other posters when contradicted by plain reading
WTF. I'm conversing with Mr. Contraire.
 
It IS standing, is it not? So OF COURSE it can stand (how long is another issue). Details of its construction are not given - only a photo - if it is a real depiction, then of course it can stand - because it IS sstanding!
 
origin said:
No. The arch can hold together but the bottom of the structure (art?) cannot.
Click to expand...

Artifice. The top can hold unless there's a breath of wind. I suspect glue or an armature.

Y'all's bullshit meter must be defective...
 
timojin said:
I suppose you will lay down the pieces on a wood mold then burn the mold and it might stand
Click to expand...
Or just remove it. People have been building arches out of stone for about four thousand years now, so they've figured out how to do it.
 
billvon said:
Or just remove it. People have been building arches out of stone for about four thousand years now, so they've figured out how to do it.
Click to expand...

Roman construction was based on arches I am not sure it was done before. The Greeks did not have it ?
 
I think there has been a bit of signals crossing in this thread.

The upper arch could stand on its own (as Andy Goldsworthy is fond of doing).

The lower half cannot.

Is there anyone that disagrees with this?

Simply put, the centre of mass of any given rock in the lower half is not over the base. The forces of the rocks above it are pushing each rock outward. There is no constraining force to stop lower arch rocks from toppling. (Remember, the rocks in the top half of the arch are also pushing the rocks in the lower half outward - with considerable force.That's why flying buttresses were invented.)
 
Last edited:
karenmansker said:
It IS standing, is it not? So OF COURSE it can stand (how long is another issue). Details of its construction are not given - only a photo - if it is a real depiction, then of course it can stand - because it IS sstanding!
Click to expand...
The OP's question is
Oystein said:
[IF this is, as claimed,] free-standing, balanced rocks

[can it stand] without either being cemented/glued or some sort of metal rod/bar inserted thru each piece.
Click to expand...
 
billvon said:
The city of Ashkelon (now in Israel) had a big arched entry gate, built around 1850BC.
Click to expand...

Interesting since those people in the area probable were Egyptian , then the occupant were Menoan later called Phonesian . By any chance the 1850 BC can be in error ? do you have any site. Perhaps the arc was made by excavation , but I doubt made of brick.
Perhaps if we look into India ( Harappan culture ) they developed backed brics earlier than in the mediterranean area
 
DaveC426913 said:
The upper arch could stand on its own (as Andy Goldsworthy is fond of doing).

The lower half cannot.

Is there anyone that disagrees with this?
Click to expand...

I dont thank the upper arch coud stand on its own.!!!

Id guess that some very good glue was used.!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top