After writing an article about Thunder Stone, it became necessary to answer a number of questions and objections.
1. Wooden ships are larger and carry much more cargo
Indisputably. This was not questioned. Indeed, there were huge wooden barges, especially the so-called Belyany for transporting timber.
The possibility of transporting the designated cargo weighing 1,500 tons (25 railway tanks) by a ship with designated dimensions (55x18x5 meters) in a designated area with known depths and against the current was questioned.
2. Why is the thickness of the sides and bottom of the vessel 1 meter? After all, wooden ships have thin walls and bottom, there are just boards on a kind of frame
This is not a simple ship. A simple ship really has a certain frame and several load-bearing beams for compression (from water) for structural rigidity. The outer shell can even be made of leather or fabric. In the case of the transportation of the Thunder Stone, a certain FLAT-BOTTOM barge was meant. Simply put, just a big box. Such a box has a carrier box itself. That is, the bottom and walls will be the supporting structure, and they will experience enormous fracture loads. At the same Belyan, the frame cross beams (frames) were placed at least half a meter apart, while the load itself (logs) were laid in such a way as to serve as frame connectors to give it rigidity. In fact, belyana is just a stack of logs and boards. In the case of a barge for the transportation of Thunder Stone, the situation is different, there is no place for this kind of stiffeners, except on the bottom. Considering the size of the box and the expected load, the walls and bottom must be very strong, which means thick. Or the barge must have a metal structure, but we are not told anything about this. Wall thickness of 1 meter is relative. In some places it can be thinner, in some thicker, in the stiffeners it is certainly thicker. Moreover, there are drawings of how it supposedly happened. Take a look at the picture. He is of course sketchy and was drawn by a person who lived much later than the alleged events. But we have no other drawings. So, if you look at the drawing, then knowing the given dimensions of the barge, we get the thickness of the bottom of the barge just 1 meter, while under the stone there is a deck of logs with a height of another 3 meters. This is the so-called "strong deck". In the diagram, it is drawn in width from side to side (like in Belians) and this is logical,after all, they play the role of a force frame for compression and stretching, and in a length of about 10 meters. According to the scheme, it turns out that the volume of only "strong deck" is about 16x10x3 = 480 cubic meters and by weight about 250 tons if it was made of dry wood. If from freshly sawn - then 400 tons with a hook. Then we look at the support beams for structural rigidity. The diagram shows only a general principle and does not indicate the number of beams, but according to the logic of things, it is reasonable to assume that such a beam in the strapping (power rib) is not one, but several of them, with a certain step. I did not take them into the calculations in my article, but if all these forests are summed up, then there will also be more than a dozen (if not hundreds) of timber cubes and it can be conventionally taken into account as the common sides of a barge with a conditional thickness of 1 meter. Besides,These force ribs hold the barge to break only from the weight of the stone and in no way keep it from the pressure of water. For this, there must also be reinforcing beams of the type of those depicted as pedestals for capstans. If there are two in one, then the diagram should indicate the points of contact with the power ribs (beams) from the stone, but we also do not observe this. Perhaps, and logically reasonably, such a barge should have had an upper deck (floor), which could carry the function of a load-bearing frame from water pressure. Knowing the area of the ship, we get several dozen more cubes of wood. All this I mean that if I was mistaken in the weight of the barge (even if only slightly), then only in a smaller direction, and therefore the draft of the barge can only be greater. For this, there must also be reinforcing beams of the type of those depicted as pedestals for capstans. If there are two in one, then the diagram should indicate the points of contact with the power ribs (beams) from the stone, but we also do not observe this. Perhaps, and logically reasonably, such a barge should have had an upper deck (floor), which could carry the function of a load-bearing frame from water pressure. Knowing the area of the ship, we get several dozen more cubes of wood. All this I mean that if I was mistaken in the weight of the barge (even if only slightly), then only in a smaller direction, and therefore the draft of the barge can only be greater. For this, there must also be reinforcing beams of the type of those depicted as pedestals for capstans. If there are two in one, then the diagram should indicate the points of contact with the power ribs (beams) from the stone, but we also do not observe this. Perhaps, and logically reasonably, such a barge should have had an upper deck (floor), which could carry the function of a load-bearing frame from water pressure. Knowing the area of the ship, we get several dozen more cubes of wood. All this I mean that if I was mistaken in the weight of the barge (even if only slightly), then only in a smaller direction, and therefore the draft of the barge can only be greater.such a barge had to have an upper deck (floor), which could carry the function of a load-bearing frame against water pressure. Knowing the area of the ship, we get several dozen more cubes of wood. All this I mean that if I was mistaken in the weight of the barge (even if only slightly), then only in a smaller direction, and therefore the draft of the barge can only be greater.such a barge had to have an upper deck (floor), which could carry the function of a load-bearing frame against water pressure. Knowing the area of the ship, we get several dozen more cubes of wood. All this I mean that if I was mistaken in the weight of the barge (even if only slightly), then only in a smaller direction, and therefore the draft of the barge can only be greater.
3. Why a pillow and ballast. Bricks are transported on ordinary pallets with inch boards. And nothing breaks
The pallet is loaded evenly over the entire pallet area. Simply put, the pressure on each point of the pallet is only equal to the weight of the material at that point. If the height of the bricks is 1 meter, then only about 1.7 kg will be pressed for each square centimeter of the pallet. And for this, the thickness of an inch board is sufficient. In the case of transportation of the Thunder Stone, you need to understand that all these 25 railway tanks are not side by side, but one above the other upwards. Such a stack of 25 tanks. Despite the fact that the base of the stone is not flat, there is also a certain point (patch) of maximum load. Pressure in tens and even more so in hundreds of tons per square centimeter nothing can withstand. And for this we need a kind of pillow, proposed to us in the version of a certain "strong deck". If this action took place in reality, there would inevitably be a layer of sand (rubble, gravel, etc.). Moreover, it is also not thin, at least one meter for the entire area of the stone. And this is also an additional hundreds of tons.
4. The stone weighed less, in the reference books they write that it consists of feldspar and quartz
This is called granite. Granite also consists of quartz, mica and feldspar. The density of granite is known
Promotional video:
However, I do not presume to estimate the weight of the stone, I am starting from those figures that are written to us in textbooks. And they write about 1500 tons. Although in fairness it should be noted that the analysis of what is being voiced to us is subject to doubt. 150 years ago, a book was published for the 200th anniversary of the birth of Peter I, which, in particular, describes the delivery of the Thunder Stone. So, in it, the weight of the stone is sounded as 1600 tons (100,000 pounds), while in the same book it is written that when lifting the stone, 12 screws with a carrying capacity of 6300 pounds were used, which means that the stone weighed no more than 1200 tons.
There is also no consensus about the dimensions of the stone, and different authors at different times attributed different sizes to it.
5. The depth maps are not correct, they show a certain minimum level
Depth maps cannot be wrong. They show exactly the real depth, not the minimum. And with an accuracy of tenths of a meter. And if a fairway was dug in the designated place, it would inevitably be marked on the maps. And this is not. And it could not bring it in with sand. There is no current in the designated place, it is far from the Neva. Existing pits and fairways are not covered with sand. What they were a hundred years ago, they are now.
6. Then the water level in the Neva and the bay was higher
This is not true. There are many engravings from the late 18th century. For example, compare how much the level has changed over the past 200 years. The answer is not at all.
The water level was indeed different, but much earlier, in the 14-17 centuries. More details on the link.
And the last thing.
Who and how dragged the barge this kilometer? Aliens on balloons?
For clarity, here is a photo from the place of the proposed loading of the stone, you can see how the fisherman is fishing while standing in the water. The fisherman is about 300 meters away.
Here a fisherman sits on a stepladder.
And here I got off her.
By the way, about how they dragged. We are told that two sailboats. And they even draw such a picture.
The sailboats are not small. If the picture is drawn in the correct proportions, then the height of the sailboats is in no way less than 35 meters and the hull width is up to 10 meters. The next question arises: what is the draft of such a sailboat and its displacement? How did they get there? After all, we know for sure that until 1885, before the channel was dug from Kronstadt, only relatively small low-tonnage vessels could enter St. Petersburg. All large-tonnage ships were unloaded outside the Marquis puddle in Kronstadt, and then the cargo was transported by small ships. Wikipedia is about this.
Well, in general, something like that, I hope I explained it clearly. On this we will consider the topic closed.
Author: zodchi1