Science desk
< August 28	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 29

Measurements of an indented wheel

Reconstruction of the wheel originally on top of the Lion Capital of Ashoka

Diameters of an indented circle (to scale, but number of holes reduced and size of holes increased for clarity)

Dear all, we've been puzzled [1] by the following statement by an archaeologist describing the dimensions of a Buddhist wheel (the wheel originally on top of the Lion Capital of Ashoka, black-and-white reconstruction attached):

Height of the Dharma-chakra (wheel) = 2ft 8 in.

Internal diameter of the Dharma-chakra (wheel) = 2 ft 5 inches to 2 ft 1 inch.

Width of the rim of the Wheel = 3.65 inches

See: Specs p.1 Reconstruction p.123

Initially we thought that the two internal diameters ("2 ft 5 inches to 2 ft 1 inch") given by the author might reflect uncertainties about actual internal diameter (photograph of the actual remains). But we also know that the spokes of the wheel were inserted inside the circular rim through 2-inches mortise holes.
So, I stumbled upon the idea that the archaeologist was simply giving us the measurements of an indented wheel, in which the spokes were designed to be inserted (brown diagram attached): that is, one external diameter (here 2ft8ins) and two internal diameters: one internal diameter taken from the depth of a motise hole to the depth of the mortise hole on the other side (here 2ft 5ins), and one internal diameter taken from rim to rim, outside of the mortise holes (here 2ft 1in). Even the arithmetics match perfectly: 2 ft 5 inches = 2 ft 1 inch + the two holes (2 x 2 inches), and it otherwise matches known facts from reliable sources (no source state that the remains could belong to two wheels of different diameters, or that the wheel could be non-regular/non-symetrical).
Question: could you confirm if this is likely a proper explanation in terms of scientifc common sense and practices, or am I "out of my mind"? You can even weigh in on the Talk Page [2] should you feel so inclined. Thank you! पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another intepretation is that the wheel isn't a perfect circle, the dimensions representing its longest and shortest axes. However, a reasonably thorough Google search hasn't been abe to confirm to me either theory. Alansplodge (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the two choices are "likely a proper explanation", or "out of [your] mind". It seems like there is a third (highly likely, IMHO) option: the original information you quote is worded imprecisely, and while your interpretation is possible, it's not possible to determine with any degree of certainty which of these interpretations was actually intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this thing exists, couldn't somebody just measure it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the OP find it themselves and measure it? Access to rare, ancient artifacts may be difficult for the average person. --Jayron 32 14:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. But it would answer the question definitively! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. If you click the link to the original discussion (after "puzzled"), you'll see that we do not have the complete original artefact. We have three disconnected arc segments with significant gaps between them, and the segments, parts of a stone carving, do not precisely match in their individual inner and outer curvatures. This makes it very difficult to work out their exact original positions relative to each other, and hence the dimensions of the original whole artefact, which may not have been exactly round. (This may have been due to inaccurate carving, or may (I suggest) have been deliberate to create a 'false perspective', bearing in mind that the artefact was mounted on the top of a column to be viewed from below.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.90.29 (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]