Can you dig a vault below the MP SHAFT?

[chalkoutline]

Chalkoutline, gravelteeth
Just noticed in the Mccully letter that it's a DOUBLE floor in the storage area, i.e. 4" oak, 6" spruce (?) pole. This can handle a very heavy load, maybe even a dirt column 100' high (no platforms).

C - still confused
Are you saying the platforms were installed on the way down? How could you have your cribbing advance downward at the same time?

Seems like the the choice is platforms, or cribbing, or neither.

Armchair,
In thread "Oak Island Treasure Revelations", post #73, i detailed 2 methods for a pre-1700, 100ft vertical shaft WITH CRIBBING . These methods are no longer considered safe so a third method is in use and used to construct the COOI garden shaft.

In this thread i decided to share my analysis of how to dig a 100ft vertical shaft WITHOUT CRIBBING. It is strictly MY analysis because I could not find any evidence or examples that used no cribbing.

MY analysis is based on two unsubstantiated claims:
Claim 1: the depositors dug a 12'x12" shaft in the virgin, unworked clayish till found on OI.

Claim 2: every 10ft the depositors dug a horizontal niche, 1ft deep into the side of the shaft wall to accommodate 14ft logs for platforms.

There was no information provided on whether the log platforms were placed going down or up. All we know is in 1795 3 boys found log platforms every 10 feet which everyone i spoke to and comments on this forum, that these platforms spanned and covered the entire 12'x12' shaft.

Figure 2 provides more detail Armchair's conclusion that the platforms found by the 3 boys could only have be placed when filling the shaft.

Figure 1 shows 14ft logs could have be lowered diagonally and slid into horizontal niches BUT this method can only achieve a "half platform".
So it is possible and does makes sense the depositors used "half platform" to dig the shaft but used the method shown in Figure 2 to close the other half of the platform when filling the shaft.

Before everyone goes running off saying i proved the platforms to be true, keep in mind that the "half platforms" blocked the depositors ability to fill the shaft. So they would have had to either
1. bucket the dirt back down and fill under the half platforms OR
2. After tossing dirt down the open part of the shaft they would have had to send men down to fill in under the "half platforms" and then lower logs to fill in the other half of the platforms.

In either case there would certainly have been voids/air gaps under each platform once the dirt settled.

Once again i reiterate, all of this analysis is based on the depositors ability to
1. dig 1ft deep niches in the shaft walls, install 14ft logs without compromising the integraty of wall supporting the logs.
2. That during the daily activities of traversing the shaft and raising/ lowering potentially 300lbs buckets didn't cause a platform(s) to fail.

This begs the question...if a "half platform" failed, how would they replace it. The till that used to support the platform would be gone!

Many, many holes in the NO CRIBBING theory. Therefore, until someone can produce evidence that the depositors could have indeed dug a 100ft shaft without cribbing, i have to conclude the MP story is not true...You must use cribbing!

Any theory based on the NO CRIBBING theory is equally false.
-CO

 

[chalkoutline]

Armchair,
In thread "Oak Island Treasure Revelations", post #73, i detailed 2 methods for a pre-1700, 100ft vertical shaft WITH CRIBBING . These methods are no longer considered safe so a third method is in use and used to construct the COOI garden shaft.

In this thread i decided to share my analysis of how to dig a 100ft vertical shaft WITHOUT CRIBBING. It is strictly MY analysis because I could not find any evidence or examples that used no cribbing.

MY analysis is based on two unsubstantiated claims:
Claim 1: the depositors dug a 12'x12" shaft in the virgin, unworked clayish till found on OI.

Claim 2: every 10ft the depositors dug a horizontal niche, 1ft deep into the side of the shaft wall to accommodate 14ft logs for platforms.

There was no information provided on whether the log platforms were placed going down or up. All we know is in 1795 3 boys found log platforms every 10 feet which everyone i spoke to and comments on this forum, that these platforms spanned and covered the entire 12'x12' shaft.

Figure 2 provides more detail Armchair's conclusion that the platforms found by the 3 boys could only have be placed when filling the shaft.

Figure 1 shows 14ft logs could have be lowered diagonally and slid into horizontal niches BUT this method can only achieve a "half platform".
So it is possible and does makes sense the depositors used "half platform" to dig the shaft but used the method shown in Figure 2 to close the other half of the platform when filling the shaft.

Before everyone goes running off saying i proved the platforms to be true, keep in mind that the "half platforms" blocked the depositors ability to fill the shaft. So they would have had to either
1. bucket the dirt back down and fill under the half platforms OR
2. After tossing dirt down the open part of the shaft they would have had to send men down to fill in under the "half platforms" and then lower logs to fill in the other half of the platforms.

In either case there would certainly have been voids/air gaps under each platform once the dirt settled.

Once again i reiterate, all of this analysis is based on the depositors ability to
1. dig 1ft deep niches in the shaft walls, install 14ft logs without compromising the integraty of wall supporting the logs.
2. That during the daily activities of traversing the shaft and raising/ lowering potentially 300lbs buckets didn't cause a platform(s) to fail.

This begs the question...if a "half platform" failed, how would they replace it. The till that used to support the platform would be gone!

Many, many holes in the NO CRIBBING theory. Therefore, until someone can produce evidence that the depositors could have indeed dug a 100ft shaft without cribbing, i have to conclude the MP story is not true...You must use cribbing!

Any theory based on the NO CRIBBING theory is equally false.
-CO

Also, its well sourced that baking the clayish till will only dry it and NOT strengthen it. Besides, pot belly stoves were not in use until the early 1800s. It was an improvement to the Franklin stove used in the 1700s.

 

[chalkoutline]

I'm not sure it's even clear whether they excavated a round shaft or rectangular one

Gravelteeth,
You are correct. The shaft could have been circular which is stronger because there is equal pressure on all sides. And why wells are normally round.

I mention this because someone stated ..."some one has to be the first to introduce a new method,. That's how technology moves forward".
This was presented as a reason why the depositors used no cribbing...they were first to use this practice and merely pushing the envelope...the envelope of stupidity!

On the contrary, the predicate to vertical shafts methods were the methods used to dig wells which by the 1600s all used cribbing.

 

[Oak Island Sage]

Gravelteeth,
You are correct. The shaft could have been circular which is stronger because ithere is equal pressure on all sides. And why wells are normally round.

I mention this because someone stated ..."some one has to be the first to introduce a new method,. That's how technology moves forward".
This was presented as a reason why the depositors used no cribbing...they were first to use this practice and merely pushing the envelope...the envelope of stupidity!

On the contrary, the predicate to vertical shafts methods were the methods used to dig wells which by the 1600s all used cribbing.

 

[GravelTeeth]

There was no information provided on whether the log platforms were placed going down or up.

The "pirate bank" theory suggested that the central shaft was never designed to hold the treasure (putting aside the supposed stacked boxes and Chappell Vault for the sake of this discussion) , but only give initial access for the diggers who would tunnel out from that hub to several points yonder. Each spoke tunnel would end in a chamber with loot. Any returning depositor needing access to their stash would know (via compass direction and pacing it off, I imagine) where in relation to the central hub their stash was located and access it from above, digging down into the loot chamber from ground level. The spoke tunnels may have angled up so that the loot chambers were just a few feet under surface. Lack of finding such intersecting tunnels while excavating the Money Pit shaft could be explained if depositors did a good job walling up the entrances with more clayish till.

This theory leads me to the following question: while the initial digging into the side of a deep shaft, already of questionable integrity, would certainly create a weak spot that could cause a collapse, IF they were to shore it up immediately and continue bracing for the entire length of each tunnel, would such cribbed spoke tunnels then serve to weaken, or strengthen, the central shaft? Would the downward pressure of the tons of earth tend to be aggravated or mitigated?

--GT

 

[Oak Island Sage]

In my view in the circular Money Pit shaft not all the logs had to the same length to fit onto a niche ledge, the length of the logs could have been gradually decreased to match the contours. The top three or four platforms were used as sleeping quarters, hence the discovery of Coconuts Fibres which was spillage from the soft ships cargo dunnage bags that they utilized as mattresses , Charcoal and white wood ash was raked out from some sort of iron wood stove. It is these upper level walls that were described as very hard. For all the lower platform levels all the miners required was just enough logs to support a short ladder, say about thirty six 6" logs. At various lower levels ascending flood tunnels were cut into the sides of the shaft. On eventually reaching the required depth of approximately 180 ft all the platforms up to the top three or four level were then rendered superfluous to requirements and backfilling was not required. Some of those lower logs and ladders may well have been hauled up to the surface for use elsewhere. Only the upper levels were eventually back filled, and on the surface over lapping flat stones were placed and used to act as a relatively dry roof over the lower positioned sleeping quarters.
Some of logs were purposely left out on one side to allow lower access for the removal of spoil from the shaft and tunnels, probably with an iron bucket. This was hauled up with a heavy ships block attached to a sawn off branch of an Oak Tree that overlapped the shaft, the iron chain haulage system was probably operated by a mule towing it up on the surface. The block and tackle may have been left behind because no treasure was in the Money Pit to worry about.
The Money Pit (sand sump) was not the only deep shaft on Oak Island there were four more, and seven or more shallow ones and each were linked with flood tunnels, and I don't have a shred of evidence to prove it. Whether or not people choose to believe me, well that is of course is their prerogative but the very wise who understand how the great subterranean system worked - will.

Oak Island Sage

 

[chalkoutline]

The "pirate bank" theory suggested that the central shaft was never designed to hold the treasure (putting aside the supposed stacked boxes and Chappell Vault for the sake of this discussion) , but only give initial access for the diggers who would tunnel out from that hub to several points yonder. Each spoke tunnel would end in a chamber with loot. Any returning depositor needing access to their stash would know (via compass direction and pacing it off, I imagine) where in relation to the central hub their stash was located and access it from above, digging down into the loot chamber from ground level. The spoke tunnels may have angled up so that the loot chambers were just a few feet under surface. Lack of finding such intersecting tunnels while excavating the Money Pit shaft could be explained if depositors did a good job walling up the entrances with more clayish till.

This theory leads me to the following question: while the initial digging into the side of a deep shaft, already of questionable integrity, would certainly create a weak spot that could cause a collapse, IF they were to shore it up immediately and continue bracing for the entire length of each tunnel, would such cribbed spoke tunnels then serve to weaken, or strengthen, the central shaft? Would the downward pressure of the tons of earth tend to be aggravated or mitigated?

--GT

Gravelteeth,
I have not heard about a pirate bank, hub and spoke tunnels so i can't speak to that. However, i can share my thoughts on the platforms/ladders in a cribbed vertical shaft.

There are two methods
1. The partial platforms are all on the SAME side of the shaft with one long ladder from top to bottom.. Buckets are raised and lowered through the other half of the open shaft.
2. Each platform is placed at 90 degrees from the platform above it so the platforms spiral down shaft with platforms placed on all 4 walls. This allows the use of shorter ladders to get from one platform to the next. buckets are raised and lowered through the center of the shaft.

Just to be clear, you cannot dig a 100ft deep vertical shaft without cribbing; however, if i did want to apply these methods to dig a shaft without cribbing, i certainly would not use method one because they are all on the same side so if one platform gave away, which it most certainly would, there is a good chance that all the platforms below would collapse withit.

By using method 2 there are two benefits
1. Less catastrophic if a platform gives way because 3/4 of the platforms are anchored in the other 3 walls
2. When you reach the level for horizontal tunnels, you can crib/support all four walls of the bottom two or three platforms before digging horizontally.

Everything i mentioned is purely hypothetical and there is no evidence in the MP story that would support any of this.

-CO

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

last time I had kids dig for me:

 

[chalkoutline]

Gravelteeth,
I have not heard about a pirate bank, hub and spoke tunnels so i can't speak to that. However, i can share my thoughts on the platforms/ladders in a cribbed vertical shaft.

There are two methods
1. The partial platforms are all on the SAME side of the shaft with one long ladder from top to bottom.. Buckets are raised and lowered through the other half of the open shaft.
2. Each platform is placed at 90 degrees from the platform above it so the platforms spiral down shaft with platforms placed on all 4 walls. This allows the use of shorter ladders to get from one platform to the next. buckets are raised and lowered through the center of the shaft.

Just to be clear, you cannot dig a 100ft deep vertical shaft without cribbing; however, if i did want to apply these methods to dig a shaft without cribbing, i certainly would not use method one because they are all on the same side so if one platform gave away, which it most certainly would, there is a good chance that all the platforms below would collapse withit.

By using method 2 there are two benefits
1. Less catastrophic if a platform gives way because 3/4 of the platforms are anchored in the other 3 walls
2. When you reach the level for horizontal tunnels, you can crib/support all four walls of the bottom two or three platforms before digging horizontally.

Everything i mentioned is purely hypothetical and there is no evidence in the MP story that would support any of this.

-CO

Hello,
I dug up more facts on digging without cribbing...

It is possible to dig a vertical shaft with 90 degree vertical walls in stiff clay.
In Nova Scotia, its called Lawrencetown till.
Two layers of Lawrencetown till were found when digging in the MP at 100ft and 154ft.

So the clayish till found from 1 to 99ft would not support a vertical shaft without cribbing.
-CO

 

[Armchair detective]

Ive been running the numbers based on values provided by Google AI...

No Cribbing
Using a 3 cubic foot bucket it will take 2.3 years to dig a 100ft deep vertical shaft.
4 cubic foot bucket, 1.46 years
5 cubic foot bucket, 1 year
Thats 8 hours a day, no breaks for weather or break downs.

With cribbing
3 cubic foot bucket, 3.74 years
4 cubic foot bucket, 2.88 years
5 cubic foot bucket, 2.4 years

Been having trouble confirming these numbers.
Please check my math and tell me where my assumptions are wrong.

We are talking about removing all the dirt in a 100 ft vertical by 14 ft diameter with no cribbing.

Volume of dirt = r^2 * pi * h = 7^2*3.14159*100
= 15393 cubic ft
÷ 3 cubic ft/bucket = 5130 loads.

Hours = 2.3 years * 365 days/year * 8 hours/day
= 6716 hours.

So 5130 loads/6716 hours = 3/4 load/hr ? ?

This doesn't make any sense ...

... unless you are talking about ONE person.

Now it becomes interesting, for if you have two crews of 12 each working two shifts, you are down to 35 days.

I'm in a hurry. 3 crews round the clock.
23 days.

To dig the hole.

 

[chalkoutline]

Been having trouble confirming these numbers.
Please check my math and tell me where my assumptions are wrong.

We are talking about removing all the dirt in a 100 ft vertical by 14 ft diameter with no cribbing.

Volume of dirt = r^2 * pi * h = 7^2*3.14159*100
= 15393 cubic ft
÷ 3 cubic ft/bucket = 5130 loads.

Hours = 2.3 years * 365 days/year * 8 hours/day
= 6716 hours.

So 5130 loads/6716 hours = 3/4 load/hr ? ?

This doesn't make any sense ...

... unless you are talking about ONE person.

Now it becomes interesting, for if you have two crews of 12 each working two shifts, you are down to 35 days.

I'm in a hurry. 3 crews round the clock.
23 days.

To dig the hole.

Armchair,
1. Thanks for checking my work...i DID calculate the volume wrong.

2. To calculate time i used 10 minutes/bucket (5min to fill and 5mins to lift), then calculated hours, days, months.

Using your numbers for volume, i calculated 3.5 months to dig the shaft working 8hrs/day.
1.2 months working 24hrs/day.

Thanks again for checking my work. I don't like being wrong but not afraid to admit it.

 

[Armchair detective]

And I calculated the volume wrong also.

In "The History of the County of Lunemberg", Desbrishey noted the MP shaft was only 7 ft wide. Don't know if he was looking at a searcher shaft or the original MP, but let's go with it.

Volume of dirt to remove = 3848 ft^3 = 1282 loads.
If we assume that you have two buckets (when the empty bucket comes back down you just switch rope to the bucket you just filled and keep going), and using a 10 minute turnaround, you can pull 6 loads per hour.

So 1282/6 = 213 hrs
/8 = 26 days
/24 = 9 days

To make 9 days happen I need two shovelers, two buckets, an A frame, block and tackle, and probably 2 up top, 3 crews makes 12, logistic support add another 12, total 24.

To dig the hole.

It's all theoretical, of course, but it gives a sense of the number of people that were involved, and therefore who.