970 pounds EACH? I'm not buying it; the blocks would weigh 202 pounds per cubic foot and the concrete a block this big is made from only weighs 150 pounds per cubic foot. But set that aside.
This isn't a question you can get a real answer to, because I need to know how the wall is shaped. If you're building a straight wall, you'll need to build supporting structures because if you just throw a wall 30 feet high up it'll fall over in the slightest wind. If you're building a wall that encloses an area, the wall would be self-supporting.
Let's first calculate the number of blocks in one course. Multiply the length by 12 to get the inches, then divide by 32...or 1500.
Next is the height. The same formula gives us 22.5 blocks. Unless you plan to saw 750 blocks in half, the height will be 33 blocks or 30 feet 8 inches. The total will be 49,500 blocks.
And the weight is 48,015,000 pounds - not counting the mortar. That's 1200 truckloads.
Could you indicate the height of the wall required please.
A square foot is a flat, level, two dimensional space, equalling 144 sq inches. (1 sq ft =12 x 12 inches)The smallest face of each block is 8 x 4 (=32 sq ins).In theory you could put 4.5 of such blocks directly on an area that is as large as 144 sq ins (144/32 = 4.5), by standing them on their ends. However, this means splitting a block, and there is also no allowance for mortar to bond the blocks.So you can get four whole masonry blocks, on their ends, directly on to an area that measures 1 sq ft. In addition you can put another layer on top! So even though you only have 1 sq ft on which to place your blocks, you could stack them infinitely high! That's a lot of masonry blocks! However, the height will not actually be indefinite, ...as new courses of blocks are added, the lower blocks will eventually collapse uder the increasing weight of the massive tower of the blocks above!The height of the constuction, and consequently the actual number of blocks on the 1 sq ft, therefore, is constrained by the compression strength of the blocks!...but that is another matter!
You can predict your future height by using a height calculator on calculator.net/height-calculator.html
base is the 2D face of a figure the height is the extension of the 2D face That's why Area=Base*Height
33
4000ft
The height of the bricks used to build the Great Pyramid of Giza varies, as the stones are not uniform in size. On average, the limestone blocks used in the pyramid measure about 1.2 meters (4 feet) in height. However, the larger granite stones used in the inner chambers can be even taller, reaching up to 2.5 meters (8 feet) in height. Overall, the dimensions of the blocks were carefully chosen to fit together in the pyramid's massive structure.
D=2h h=4000ft D=2(4000 ft) D=8000 ft
Depends on the size of the bricks.
Depends on the size of the block. However, an house brick is 9" x 3" x 4" So assuming the brick is laid 9" long and 3" high a single course of wall would require!!! 21 x 12 = 252 " Hence 252 / 9 = 28 bricks for the length & 9 x 12 = 108 " Hence 108 / 3 = 36 bricks in height Hence 36 x 28 = 1008 bricks is required!!!! If you wanted a double course wall (for support) that is 8 " wide. Then you need twice the number of bricks which is 2016 bricks.
You can pump up water up to 4,000 feet a few different ways. You have to make sure all static heads are not cancel-able.
The work done to lift 40kg of bricks to a height of 10m can be calculated using the formula: Work = Force x Distance. The force required to lift the bricks is equal to the weight, which is mass x gravity (40kg x 9.8m/s^2). Plug these values into the formula to find the work done.
10 * sine(9) = 1.5643 A stack of this height could be made with 1.000, .350, .114 and .1003 blocks for the minumum number of blocks.
4"X8"= 32 sq in . . . 144 sq in per sq ft . . . 4.5 bricks per sq ft . . . 450 bricks cover 100 sq ft plus joint width and height
i think 2
The answer will depend on not just the length and width of the raised garden, but also its height. It will also depend on the size of the blocks.
Travel slowly in reverse