Lever-Crane Thought Experiment — Constraint Sandbox (GO/NO-GO)

Purpose & Non-Claims (read first)

Physics/engineering constraint sandbox (thought experiment).
Not a reconstruction of Egyptian/Mayan methods.
Outputs are approximate proxies, not archaeological claims.
Numbers depend on assumptions (materials, geometry, rigging, safety factors).
Use for GO/NO-GO stress testing of scenarios only.

GO = τ_demand ≤ τ_cap (chosen allowable stress + geometry proxy).
NO-GO = exceeds capacity OR requires forces beyond chosen inputs.

Interpretation mode

Canvas watermark

Narrative mode is illustrative only. Labels are visualization language — not historical claims.

Controls

Rig type

Simulation mode

Units

Ton type

Block weight preset (tons)

Block weight (tons) (1–500)

Target lift height (in)

Move distance per cycle (ft) (Lift+Move)

Front arm length r_front (ft) — fulcrum → sling

Back arm length r_back (ft) — fulcrum → counterweight

Counterweight (tons) (override)

Auto CW

Built-up logs in beam (manual)

Log diameter (in)

Contact pad area under sling (in²)

Optional people pull force (lb) (for sliding)

Friction μ (0.02–0.20) — used in math only

Sensitivity hint: changing μ, pad area, r_front, r_back, or allowable-stress proxy can flip GO/NO-GO. This is a constraint stress test — not a proclamation.

Live Results

Auto/Manual counterweight setting

—

Mechanical advantage (r_back / r_front)

—

Beam torque demand vs capacity (GO/NO-GO)

—

Force threshold to start lift (back end)

—

Beam bending stress proxy (approx)

—

Contact pressure proxy at sling pad

—

Move resistance estimate (μ·W)

—

A-frame leg load (approx)

—

Recommended logs (min) to meet GO torque-capacity proxy

—

Recommended section summary

—

Equations (live)

Paper text (editable copy)

GO/NO-GO here means τ_demand ≤ τ_cap under your proxy assumptions — not “proven in reality.” If you ever show squared terms, use caret form like W^2 to avoid formatting breaks.

Why “lift a little + spread the load” matters

r_front ↑ → stone torque ↑ → harder to lift (in this model).
r_back ↑ → force threshold ↓ (more leverage).
Force threshold: F_lift = (W · r_front) / r_back.
GO/NO-GO: τ_demand ≤ τ_cap (chosen allowable stress + geometry proxy).

Purpose & Non-Claims (read first)

Controls

Live Results

Equations (live)

Paper text (editable copy)

Why “lift a little + spread the load” matters

Does this configuration meet this model’s assumptions?