Not passing the sniff test for me. Three flaws at first glance…<p>At the end he describes lowering blocks into place by incrementally removing bladders. This does not work. As soon as you are fully submerged and displacing with bladders you are unstable. As your depth increases, pressure increases, and your displacement goes down making you sink even faster. The good news is if you get neutrally buoyant you could poke the blocks down into place and they wouldn't weight much so you could move them around then remove the bladders.<p>Also not covered was how the water gets to the top. Each lock load of blocks and bladders requires at minimum the same mass of water to be lowered (to fill the lower lock chamber). In practice it will be at least several times this in order to keep the blocks from jamming in the chamber. So each ton of block effortlessly floated to the top will take several to many tons of water laboriously hauled to the top. Hauling water is probably lower friction than stone, compared to the volume multiplier, I can't say who wins.<p>The inner lower lock door is also a problem. It has to contain water at something like 10 atmospheres and be loose enough to move. Plus, if shaped like the video, it needs to weigh 150lbs/in^2 to keep from being blown out when raised. That makes it about 120 feet tall if made from limestone.
Interesting idea, and maybe one worth investigating further.
I've always liked the internal ramp theory: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws4O5LOCI68" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws4O5LOCI68</a><p>In the end, lets all at least agree that it was human innovation and not alien technology that built the pyramids.
I am not convinced that the Egyptians could build watertight channels at this scale, especially those shown climbing up the slope of the pyramid which would have to be watertight at the top too, and under great pressure. Also one or two packages could easily get stuck in the "pipe" jamming the whole thing. Finally, the video likely downplays the number of floaters necessary to lift a block of stone.
For the sake of the argument, let's accept <i>"The structural engineer reckons that would be impossible as the ramps would have had to have been at least a quarter of a mile long"</i> and <i>""If that happened, there would still be signs that the ramps had been there, and there aren't any."</i><p>This idea replaces that quarter mile ramp by a waterway with a difference in water level of 150+ meter and thus with 150+ meter high watertight walls that can withstand the pressure. Where are the signs that that waterway was there?<p>Also, how do you get the water up in that lock? Ships can move up through locks, but water only flows down.
Why not test this theory with a smaller pyramid replica. I think that a lot of people would volunteer to spend a couple of weeks of their summer working on a project like this.
Interesting idea.<p>Romans used water for mining too.<p>Why do effort when nature does it for you?<p>Two problems people raise:<p>Water pressure from 150m+ water column is too much. In the video they talk about dividing the hight slope channel into sections This way leaks will be also smaller.<p>Putting water inside. This probably is the weaker point of all.<p>But overall it makes sense. It will be great for a kickstarter to try to replicate it at a small scale.
OK. How about if they also built a large water tower on top of the pyramid? The seasonal rains would be trapped in the basin(s) and used to refill channels and replace water lost due to leakage?
i love this - even if it turns out to be not fully correct in the end.
one thing i was wondering was if any evidence had been found about about the balloon floatation devices, and, along similar lines, if they modeled the idea that small barges atop the blocks might have worked instead of balloons.