THE GREAT PYRAMID: PROOF OF SHEEP
Dominic Green
Dear Friends
I have been lucky in obtaining a copy of the rare 'THE GREAT PYRAMID:
PROOF OF GOD', by Professor George Riffert, and been filled with
Messianic Numerological Fervour. God, who has demanded Blind Acts of
Faith from his followers for many years, has finally been Found Out. In
this discourse I shall make use of a measurement of my own devising
called the 'Pyramid Furlong', which is the distance from Gizeh to
Beijing divided by the number of blocks along one basal side of the
Great Pyramid. Using this measurement, we may see - incredible though
it may seem - that the base of the Great Pyramid is *exactly* the number
of blocks in length as would be required to reach from Gizeh to Beijing,
were each block a Pyramid Furlong in length! Furthermore, were the
Great Pyramid itself large enough to reach from Gizeh to Beijing, each
of its blocks would be exactly a Pyramid Furlong long. Coincidence?
There are others. The Great Pyramid possesses FIVE faces - the number
of Chinese Elements - and EIGHT edges - the number of directions in the
I Ching. Furthermore, it is also built to contain Mummified Pharaohs,
who, due to the amorphous and non-polyhedral nature of Pharaohs, have
ONE face - coincidentally also the number of faces normally possessed by
Chinese people - and NO sharp edges - the number of Live Rhinoceroses
which have Sat On Deng Xiao Ping since 1945.
What can this mean but that Chinese people built the pyramids? Now, at
last, the function of the Pyramids falls into place; the pyramids are
nothing but gigantic pyramidal-mausoleum-shaped Chinese Laundries. It
must be remembered that no Pharaonic Mummy has ever been discovered in a
Pyramid - however, it must also be remembered that our Dear Queen Mother
has never been discovered in a Launderette. Originally, the Sarcophagi
would have revolved, being filled with new Cocaine-Fresh MUMMIA for a
New Brown Tarry Whiteness that leaves other Embalming Fluids Far Behind
and Washes Black Pharaohs Whiter Than White, and would only have been a
Temporary Repository for one's Divine Ancestor when one wished to clean
his bandages. 'Oh, tut, Tut', they would say, 'You have been romping in
the blood of Foolhardy Egyptologists again. I do hope my old powder can
get these brain stains out at below 50 degrees C.' The mummies would
sit in a line, possibly waving to their cheery elderly relatives tossing
and tumbling in the foamy suds.
What powered these Pyramid Laundries? ATOMIC POWER, taking the form of
Cold Fusion in the Plutonium Blocks of which the King's Chamber is
constructed.*
What is known about Cold Fusion?
(1) It requires a Cold Fission Reaction to set it off
(2) It may well be Colder than Hot Fusion
(3) It releases vast quantities of Helium
What did the Ancient Sino-Egyptians do with this helium? They SOLD IT
TO THE NAZCA INDIANS TO FILL THEIR HOT AIR BALLOONS WITH IN RETURN FOR
CRACK COCAINE. There is a Helium Pipeline beneath the Great Pyramid
which plunges beneath the Atlantic. How is the Helium piped to Nazca?
It is Greatly Supercooled, which makes it Flow Down The Pipe To Nazca Of
Its Own Accord. This is why HITLER is currently inside the Great
Pyramid. He is planning to build a second Hindenburg, out of Helium -
and this one will not burn.
Yours
Reverend Colonel Ignatius Churchward Von Berlitz M.A. (Dom. Sci.) Oxon.
(Oklahoma)
*Of course, the King's Chamber is *not* composed of Radioactive
Plutonium. This proves conclusively that the Great Pyramid is at least
one million years old, since the Plutonium of which it was originally
constructed has now decayed sufficiently to become harmless Granite.
This in turn proves that the Great Pyramid was constructed by Sheep.**
**Professor Riffert, page 65, THE GREAT PYRAMID: PROOF OF GOD:-
'...we learn that while the Egyptians worshipped everything down
to crocodiles or snakes, they hated sheep. Under no circumstances were
they tolerated.'
A natural reaction, surely, for a people now known to have been Racially
Jewish, who were forced to ferry Proud Imperious Sheep to Australia on
the backs of Dead Hebrews against their will.
Professor Riffert's most startling discovery is the fact that the figure
'1844' appears repeatedly in Pyramidological Measurement. Professor
Riffert concludes that the Egyptians were celebrating the Great
Precessional Cycle of the Heavens which concluded in the year 1844, but
I believe them to have been communicating a Dire Warning. What occurred
in the year 1844? The Invention of the Morse Telegraph and Laughing Gas
- a great year for the advancement of Long-Distance Dentistry - but also
the Foundation of the Young Men's Christian Association. I have long
been suspicious of this organization, particularly since its members
began to sport Construction Helmets and Handlebar Moustaches, and sing
Jolly Songs concerning the Companionship of Young Men Together.
Dawn Waker
>
>Dear Friends
>
>I have been lucky in obtaining a copy of the rare 'THE GREAT PYRAMID:
>PROOF OF GOD', by Professor George Riffert, and been filled with
>Messianic Numerological Fervour. God, who has demanded Blind Acts of
>Faith from his followers for many years, has finally been Found Out. In
>this discourse I shall make use of a measurement of my own devising
>called the 'Pyramid Furlong', which is the distance from Gizeh to
>Beijing divided by the number of blocks along one basal side of the
>Great Pyramid. Using this measurement, we may see - incredible though
>it may seem - that the base of the Great Pyramid is *exactly* the number
>of blocks in length as would be required to reach from Gizeh to Beijing,
--snip--
ROTFL
dawn
wvk
I was looking over the subject article by Christopher Dunn
http://www.lauralee.com/chrisdunn/index.htm
I then pulled up the string of related articles from Dejanews which mostly
discusses the thoery of "ultrasonic Drilling in regards to the sarcophagus
in the GP.
Putting that issue aside what has been made of the machining marks found on
other artifacts i.e. contour machining, three-axes machining and other marks
one would expect to find on a machined product.
Can all this be explained by conventional (hand) methods or is this the
"smoking gun" that all those who doubt conventional methods of construction
have been looking for?
Wayne Van Kirk
Rodney Small
Thanks so much for the reference. I began this thread in the hope
that Dunn's claims would be carefully examined. Hopefully, our friends
August and Martin, among others, will now have a look, and give us their
thoughts.
Regards,
Rodney
August Matthusen
It’s quite a nice page as it shows what Dunn was talking about
but it seems to have a few conceptual problems. For example the
quote below contains two problems that were previously discussed.
From Dunn's page:
"Petrie theorized that a ton or two of pressure was applied
to a tubular drill consisting of bronze inset with jewels.
I disagree. This doesn’t take into consideration that under
several thousand pounds pressure the jewels would undoubtedly
work their way into the softer substance, leaving the granite
relatively unscathed after the attack. Nor does this method
explain the groove being deeper through the quartz."
From some old posts:
If the jewels are mounted in the bronze,
the "resistance" (pressure) would be integrated over the entire
surface area of the jewel which is encased in the bronze versus
the pressure of a point scribing into the granite. By the same
token, I can hold a topaz in my hand and scribe into granite
although my hand would offer much less "resistance" to a pressure
than granite. The force transferred from my hand to the topaz
may be something on the order of, say 100 lbs. However, this is
integrated over approximately 2.5 sq inches of areal surface of
fingers holding the topaz for a pressure on my hand of 40 lbs/sq in.
If the point scribing the granite is .1 in by .1 in this would be
an area of .01 sq. in. that has the same 100 lbs of force acting
on this small point and the pressure on the granite would be
equivalent to 10000 lbs per sq. in.
Petrie's explanation does explain cutting "deeper"
through the quartz in that the quartz grains stick
out more than the feldspars, so the cutting is
to the same relative depth (an identical circumference
on the core).
Look at what Petrie had to say. This is an argument
*for* the jeweled drills:
"On the granite core, broken from a drill-hole (No. 7),
other features appear, which also can only be explained by the
use of fixed jewel points. Firstly, the grooves which run around
it form a regular spiral, with no more interruption or waviness
than is necessarily produced by the variations in the component
crystals; this spiral is truly symmetrical with the axis of the
core. In one part a groove can be traced, with scarcely an
interruption, for a length of four turns. Secondly, the grooves
are as deep in the quartz as in the adjacent felspar, and even
rather deeper. If these were in any way produced by loose powder,
they would be shallower in the harder substance--quartz; whereas
a fixed jewel point would be compelled to plough to the same
depth in all the components; and further, inasmuch as the quartz
stands out slightly beyond the felspar (owing to the latter being
worn by general rubbing), the groove was thus left even less in
depth on the felspar than on the quartz. Thus, even if specimens
with similarly deep grooves would be produced by a loose powder,
the special features of this core would still show that fixed
cutting points were the means here employed."
The groove is scribed to an identical circumference
around the core through all the mineral grains. As the
quartz grains stick out slightly further the mark is
*apparently* scribed deeper in them. This can be explained
two ways: feldspar grains ground down more (i.e., they are
recessed compared to the quartz) than the quartz
prior to scribing the mark or after. Prior: from
rubbing by the ground up material caught between the drill
from the initial drilling which would preferentially grind
down the micas and feldspars as the ground up granitic
material would contain quartz which could wear away the softer
feldspars and micas easier than the quartz which has the same
hardness. This would leave the feldspars slightly lower than
the quartz grains which would allow the reaming tool or new
drill which I suggested may be responsible for scribing the
mark. This was partially why I suggested the reaming tool or
new drillbit. After: the mark gets scribed and the core is
rubbed with quartz sand afterwards. It is rubbed enough to
wear down the feldspars slightly (but not the quartz) and is
not rubbed enough to not removed the scribed mark. I don't
like this idea much as it makes you wonder why someone would
start to smooth/polish something but not do it enough to remove
a mark scored into the core.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Jon Guite
In article <32FF11...@phoenix.net>, wvk <w...@phoenix.net> writes
>I was looking over the subject article by Christopher Dunn
>http://www.lauralee.com/chrisdunn/index.htm
>
>I then pulled up the string of related articles from Dejanews which mostly
>discusses the thoery of "ultrasonic Drilling in regards to the sarcophagus
>in the GP.
>
>Putting that issue aside what has been made of the machining marks found on
>other artifacts i.e. contour machining, three-axes machining and other marks
>one would expect to find on a machined product.
>
>Can all this be explained by conventional (hand) methods or is this the
>"smoking gun" that all those who doubt conventional methods of construction
> have been looking for?
>Wayne Van Kirk
head in horror!
--
Jon Guite
Rodney Small
August Matthusen wrote:
[All snipped}
I've sent your message to Mr. Dunn in the hopes that he may respond.
Regards,
Rodney
Martin Stower
August Matthusen <matt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[sundry useful things on this Egyptian drill question . . .]
In modern versions of this drilling principle, a relatively soft metal is
used for the tube, such that the abrasive slurry will embed itself in the
attack face. (Thanks to Richard Jalbert for this.)
The same with the ancient Egyptian version: grains of the abrasive would
embed in the copper (or bronze) until the force was distributed over a
sufficient area for the metal to resist the pressure. This would create
a `jewelled' tool automatically - meeting Petrie's requirements without
the tool being fabricated as such.
Such an argument is presented in `Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Industries'.
Martin Stower
wvk
I went through the old stuff regarding this, mostly the ultrasonic drilling
was debated.
BUT Dunn goes into other artifacts that display (in his opinion) marking one
would expect from common machine tools. Has this been discussed?
Wayne Van Kirk
wvk
> Jon Guite No. Von Daniken is Swiss, I'm Dutch.
Jon - BTW have you read the article?
Wayne Van Kirk
Rodney Small
Good point, I don't think it has. Also, it's well to keep in mind
that Petrie found the rate of drilling in the Valley Temple hole and core
"astonishing". Now perhaps he was more easily astonished than August and
Martin are, but he does have almost as good a reputation ...
Regards,
Rodney
P.S. I heard back from Chris Dunn via e-mail, and he says he hopes to
join the discussion on this topic in the near future. He was not aware
that such groups existed, but thanks to me his blissful state of
ignorance has now ended.
August Matthusen
Rodney Small wrote:
> Good point, I don't think it has. Also, it's well to keep in mind
> that Petrie found the rate of drilling in the Valley Temple hole and core
> "astonishing". Now perhaps he was more easily astonished than August and
> Martin are, but he does have almost as good a reputation ...
Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was still suggesting, as I did before,
that the scribed mark on the core was not from drilling rather
it was from going back after the core had been drilled and
reaming or advancing a new drill bit onto the core. Thus
it would not be necessary to drill at that rate only to advance a
bit over a previously drilled core at that rate. Drilling
at that rate would have been astonishing, reaming or advancing a
new bit would not.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Rodney Small
Okay, thanks for the clarification, but why didn't Petrie mention this
possibility? I think you would agree that he was a very careful
scientist, and so perhaps he discounted what you are suggesting based on
all evidence available to him. My point is that when someone as eminent
as Petrie expresses astonishment about a core the ancient Egyptians
drilled, maybe Dunn's hypothesis deserves closer examination.
Regards,
Rodney
August Matthusen
Perhaps Petrie never worked on a drill rig, logged core, sat on a rig
while the roughnecks fished for a twisted-off bit or broken stem, or
examined a chipped drill bit. Perhaps he never participated in
lapidairy and wasn't fully familiar different methods to grind rocks
and minerals. Perhaps he never considered that a drill bit such as he
envisioned would have to be removed to clear out the rock flour and
chips
as the Egyptians did probably not use drilling fluids (mud, mist, water,
air, etc.) to keep the bit-face clean of debris. I don't know why he
didn't mention it*. Just because he was a careful observer does
not mean he was well versed in every field of endeavor (e.g., why didn't
he mention ultrasonic drilling?).
I've examined Dunn's hypothesis; it's too busy for my tastes. Before
you can have an ultrasonic drill you need the technology to develop and
build an ultrasonic drill. Electricity, ac-generators, cables to
conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
ferrous
metals, for that matter. No indication of such a technological
infrastructure has ever been found.
Regards,
August Matthusen
*BTW I believe Petrie *did* mention this possibility: from one of
the old posts:
[Quoting Petrie:]
"The amount of pressure, shown by the rapidity with which
the drills and saws pierced through the hard stones, is very
surprising; probably a load of at least a ton or two was placed
on the 4-inch drills cutting in granite. On the granite core, No.
7,the spiral of the cut sinks .1 inch in the circumference of 6
inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and
felspar which is astonishing. Yet these grooves cannot be due to
the mere scratching produced in withdrawing the drill, as has
been suggested, since there would be about 1/10 inch thick of
dust between the drill and the core at that part; thus there
could be scarcely any pressure applied sideways, and the point of
contact of the drill and granite could not travel around the
granite however the drill might be turned about. Hence these
rapid spiral grooves cannot be ascribed to anything but the
descent of the drill into the granite under enormous pressure;
unless, indeed, we suppose a separate rymering tool to have been
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
employed alternately with the drill for enlarging the groove, for
which there is no adequate evidence."
[Me:]
His argument *against* the "rymering" tool [which I assume is
some type of cylindrical reaming tool] seems a bit forced,
as he has no evidence for the existence of the jeweled drill
bit, either.
Rodney Small
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:
> > Okay, thanks for the clarification, but why didn't Petrie mention this
> > possibility? I think you would agree that he was a very careful
> > scientist, and so perhaps he discounted what you are suggesting based on
> > all evidence available to him. My point is that when someone as eminent
> > as Petrie expresses astonishment about a core the ancient Egyptians
> > drilled, maybe Dunn's hypothesis deserves closer examination.
>
> Perhaps Petrie never worked on a drill rig, logged core, sat on a rig
> while the roughnecks fished for a twisted-off bit or broken stem, or
> examined a chipped drill bit. Perhaps he never participated in
> lapidairy and wasn't fully familiar different methods to grind rocks
> and minerals. Perhaps he never considered that a drill bit such as he
> envisioned would have to be removed to clear out the rock flour and
> chips
> as the Egyptians did probably not use drilling fluids (mud, mist, water,
> air, etc.) to keep the bit-face clean of debris.
I take it that you are quite familiar with drilling techniques,
which I am not. However, Chris Dunn is very familiar with
drilling techniques also. Hopefully, he will be giving us a
comment soon.
I don't know why he
> didn't mention it*. Just because he was a careful observer does
> not mean he was well versed in every field of endeavor (e.g., why didn't
> he mention ultrasonic drilling?).
It's easy to explain why he never mentioned ultrasonic drilling --
it didn't exist in the 19th century!
> I've examined Dunn's hypothesis; it's too busy for my tastes. Before
> you can have an ultrasonic drill you need the technology to develop and
> build an ultrasonic drill. Electricity, ac-generators, cables to
> conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
> ferrous
> metals, for that matter. No indication of such a technological
> infrastructure has ever been found.
True, but as Dunn point out, where are the simple tools that the
conventional wisdom asserts were used? Only a handful of simple
implements have been found, and they cannot begin to explain the
massive amount of work done at Giza.
The point here is that while Petrie considered other
possibilities, he wound up being astonished by the drilling
technique, which I don't think he was very often.
Regards,
Rodney
August Matthusen
Rodney Small wrote:
>
> August Matthusen wrote:
> I don't know why he
> > didn't mention it*. Just because he was a careful observer does
> > not mean he was well versed in every field of endeavor (e.g., why didn't
> > he mention ultrasonic drilling?).
>
> It's easy to explain why he never mentioned ultrasonic drilling --
> it didn't exist in the 19th century!
Exactly. Neither did a lot of current drilling/reaming/coring
technology. Why should Petrie be knowledgeable of them?
> > I've examined Dunn's hypothesis; it's too busy for my tastes. Before
> > you can have an ultrasonic drill you need the technology to develop and
> > build an ultrasonic drill. Electricity, ac-generators, cables to
> > conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
> > ferrous
> > metals, for that matter. No indication of such a technological
> > infrastructure has ever been found.
>
> True, but as Dunn point out, where are the simple tools that the
> conventional wisdom asserts were used? Only a handful of simple
> implements have been found, and they cannot begin to explain the
> massive amount of work done at Giza.
I find it easier to believe that a simple drill bit was re-used
and/or melted down for other uses than all the technology
necessary for ultra-sonic drilling vanished without a trace.
[snip]
Not exactly. He was astonished by the *rate* of drilling
required by his premise for this particular core, not by
the drilling. What I have suggested and what he suggested
(and discarded because of what he considered "no adequate
evidence") appears to remove this rate of scribing the core
from the realm of the astonishing. I don't see why it is
necessary to drill and scribe the core at the same time.
But as Dennis Miller so aptly puts it: "That's just my
opinion, I could be wrong."
Regards,
August Matthusen
Rodney Small
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:
> >
> > August Matthusen wrote:
> [snip]
> > I don't know why he
> > > didn't mention it*. Just because he was a careful observer does
> > > not mean he was well versed in every field of endeavor (e.g., why didn't
> > > he mention ultrasonic drilling?).
> >
> > It's easy to explain why he never mentioned ultrasonic drilling --
> > it didn't exist in the 19th century!
>
> Exactly. Neither did a lot of current drilling/reaming/coring
> technology. Why should Petrie be knowledgeable of them?
You seem to be admitting that the Egyptians had a current (20th Century)
technology that 19th Century Europeans had no knowledge of. True?
> > > I've examined Dunn's hypothesis; it's too busy for my tastes. Before
> > > you can have an ultrasonic drill you need the technology to develop and
> > > build an ultrasonic drill. Electricity, ac-generators, cables to
> > > conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
> > > ferrous
> > > metals, for that matter. No indication of such a technological
> > > infrastructure has ever been found.
> >
> > True, but as Dunn point out, where are the simple tools that the
> > conventional wisdom asserts were used? Only a handful of simple
> > implements have been found, and they cannot begin to explain the
> > massive amount of work done at Giza.
>
> I find it easier to believe that a simple drill bit was re-used
> and/or melted down for other uses than all the technology
> necessary for ultra-sonic drilling vanished without a trace.
First, that's an awful lot of melting down; and second, as Dunn notes,
the simple implements found cannot account for the quality of the work.
Okay, hopefully other drilling experts will enter this discussion, and
give us their opinions on this possibility.
> But as Dennis Miller so aptly puts it: "That's just my
> opinion, I could be wrong."
Hmm, Carl Sagan used that line in "The Demon Haunted World". Did he
steal it from Miller without attribution?
> Regards,
> August Matthusen
Regards,
Rodney
August Matthusen
Rodney Small wrote:
>
> August Matthusen wrote:
> >
> > Rodney Small wrote:
> > >
> > > August Matthusen wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I don't know why he
> > > > didn't mention it*. Just because he was a careful observer does
> > > > not mean he was well versed in every field of endeavor (e.g., why didn't
> > > > he mention ultrasonic drilling?).
> > >
> > > It's easy to explain why he never mentioned ultrasonic drilling --
> > > it didn't exist in the 19th century!
> >
> > Exactly. Neither did a lot of current drilling/reaming/coring
> > technology. Why should Petrie be knowledgeable of them?
>
> You seem to be admitting that the Egyptians had a current (20th Century)
> technology that 19th Century Europeans had no knowledge of. True?
Nope. I'm just saying Petrie wouldn't have a wide knowledge of
diverse methodologies for drilling thus couldn't assess how they could
have been implemented with earlier technology. You seem to be saying
that the Egyptian's had electricity, ac-generators, cables to
conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
ferrous metals, for that matter not to mention all the rest of modern
technology that would be needed to build up and support this
infrastructure. True?
> > > > I've examined Dunn's hypothesis; it's too busy for my tastes. Before
> > > > you can have an ultrasonic drill you need the technology to develop and
> > > > build an ultrasonic drill. Electricity, ac-generators, cables to
> > > > conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
> > > > ferrous
> > > > metals, for that matter. No indication of such a technological
> > > > infrastructure has ever been found.
> > >
> > > True, but as Dunn point out, where are the simple tools that the
> > > conventional wisdom asserts were used? Only a handful of simple
> > > implements have been found, and they cannot begin to explain the
> > > massive amount of work done at Giza.
> >
> > I find it easier to believe that a simple drill bit was re-used
> > and/or melted down for other uses than all the technology
> > necessary for ultra-sonic drilling vanished without a trace.
>
> First, that's an awful lot of melting down; and second, as Dunn notes,
> the simple implements found cannot account for the quality of the work.
First, why is it a lot of melting down? We don't have much
evidence of that much drilling, why shouldn't this be a rare tool
that was re-used and recycled? Even nowdays, drill-bits are often
refurbished and re-used. For that matter, metals and metal tools
are often recycled due to their comparative scarcity.
Second, what about the work is so high quality that it couldn't
have been done with simple tools and a lot of craftsmanship and
time?
Quite possible, but you'ld have to ask Dennis. He used it in all
of his talk shows after one of his "I don't want to rant, but..."
segments. FWIW, Miller is renowned for his use of allusion to
all sorts of esoteric references (either with or without attribution).
Regards,
August Matthusen
Rodney Small
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:[snip]
> > You seem to be admitting that the Egyptians had a current (20th Century)
> > technology that 19th Century Europeans had no knowledge of. True?
>
> Nope. I'm just saying Petrie wouldn't have a wide knowledge of
> diverse methodologies for drilling thus couldn't assess how they could
> have been implemented with earlier technology.
I think you are wrong here. From what I have read by and about Petrie,
he was very knowledgeable about drilling techniques -- that's why his
being "astonished" carries so much weight.
> You seem to be saying
> that the Egyptian's had electricity, ac-generators, cables to
> conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
> ferrous metals, for that matter not to mention all the rest of modern
> technology that would be needed to build up and support this
> infrastructure. True?
I think that possibility has to be considered if the drilling cannot
be explained in any other way.
[snip]
> First, why is it a lot of melting down? We don't have much
> evidence of that much drilling, why shouldn't this be a rare tool
> that was re-used and recycled? Even nowdays, drill-bits are often
> refurbished and re-used. For that matter, metals and metal tools
> are often recycled due to their comparative scarcity.
> Second, what about the work is so high quality that it couldn't
> have been done with simple tools and a lot of craftsmanship and
> time?
I was referring not just to the drilling, but to the construction of the
pyramids and temples. You don't think it was high quality? With
respect to the Great Pyramid's casing stones, I again quote Petrie:
"...the mean variation of the cutting of the stone from a straight line
and from a true square, is but .01 inch on a length of 75 inches up the
face, an amount of accuracy equal to most modern opticians'
straight-edges of such a length. These joints, with an area of some 35
square feet each, were not only worked as finely as this, but cemented
throughout. Though the stones were brought as close as 1/500 inch, or,
in fact, into contact, and the mean opening of the joint was but 1/50
inch, yet the builders manged to fill the joint with cement, despite
the great area of it, and the weight of the stone to be moved -- some 16
tons. To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides would be
careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost
impossible." See Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (Histories and Mysteries
of Man, Ltd., London, 1990), p. 13.
> > > [snip]
> >
> > > But as Dennis Miller so aptly puts it: "That's just my
> > > opinion, I could be wrong."
> >
> > Hmm, Carl Sagan used that line in "The Demon Haunted World". Did he
> > steal it from Miller without attribution?
>
> Quite possible, but you'ld have to ask Dennis. He used it in all
> of his talk shows after one of his "I don't want to rant, but..."
> segments. FWIW, Miller is renowned for his use of allusion to
> all sorts of esoteric references (either with or without attribution).
Well, I guess, in any event, we can't sue Carl anymore. But we could
try contacting him via a seance ...
jhu...@peganet.com
> Not exactly. He was astonished by the *rate* of drilling
> required by his premise for this particular core, not by
> the drilling. What I have suggested and what he suggested
> (and discarded because of what he considered "no adequate
> evidence") appears to remove this rate of scribing the core
> from the realm of the astonishing. I don't see why it is
> necessary to drill and scribe the core at the same time.
> opinion, I could be wrong."
>
> August Matthusen
>I don't see why it is necessary to drill and scribe the core at the same time.
It is not "necessary." The coment is mis-applied. The "scribe" marks are
the marks made by any drill
while drilling any hole. Take any machined part today and look at the
sides of the hole and you will
see them, unless the hole has been burnished, polished, honed or
broached. The "scribe" marks are
usually not wanted or desired, they are a by-product of the act of
drilling. They are either left,
minimized or removed depending on specified tolerance.
This problem is being trivialized. There are a number of points about
drilling not addressed:
1) A "cutting" drill will produce a hole ONLY while spinning in one
diretion, cutting edge into the
material and down at the same time. This is not required to be true for
an "abrasive" drill, which
will produce a hole as it is spun in one direction and then reversed to
spin in the other direction,
all the while with downward pressure.
It may be assumed, though not stated here, that the spiral was in a
single direction as it would have
been mentioned as a "reversing or sawtooth spiral" otherwise. In the
case of single direction, the spiral
would be a left hand thread if made upon withdrawl: that is the spiral
would be in the same direction,
(clockwise or counter clockwise) as the drill operation but spiral
accross spirals made on the way down.
2) Keep in mind that it is much easier to produce a reversible drill
motion, as mentioned in descriptions
of fire making, a bow with the string wrapped around the drill and drawn
alternately back and forth. The
hole, if produced by a cutting drill, infers a "single direction
continuous spin." This, in turn, infers
a "motor" or motive force of "continuous single direction." Unless some
way is found to put this force
(directly above) upon the drill itself, there must have been some means
of pullys, gears, or some other
mechanism of power transfer. (the principle of reversing is easier but
with the forces involved, not
practical)
Each single aspect of this problem is relatively easy to produce, BUT to
apply two tons of pressure
downward upon a spinning object, while transferring the rotary power
(oscillation or single direction)
while keeping it aligned in place AND aligned upright (TWO AXIS), is
EXTREMELY difficult and complex.
3) Reaming is usually done for two reasons. a) for a more accurate size
and placement and b) to enlarge
a hole in steps (much harder to take it all in one bite). Even today
this is "more expensive" in terms
of time and labor as a second operation, and determines that not all of
the holes will be reamed. By its
very nature, reaming implies machines.
Reaming does go faster and can be drilled faster (a "deeper" spiral) BUT
once again there are other
aspects. How does one now hold the reamer IN THREE DIRECTIONS
(accurately) over an open hole upon which
there is no resting point for the drill, while keeping it correctly
placed, upright, and spinning? This
is even more complex than the "one drill per hole" problem.
Finally: I am amazed... I would like to see anyone put a hole of any
size at all through a block of granite
with an abrasive drill. While this can be done no one with any sense
would even attempt it. I will even
allow the use dimaond dust... and will grow quite old while the hole is
made.
I would also like to see the material that was used to make a cutting
drill that will cut through granite to make this hole. And if you are
thinking of proposing that there will be drill changes due to wear or
breakage
please include the solution to all of the alignmment and re-plaement
problems.
Jim Huston
Duncan Craig
to
> apply two tons of pressure
> downward
Please excuse me for interjecting; this discussion is way over my head,
but I haven't seen any reference to the unusual properties of quartz
chrystal itself. In a book by Ian Campbell and Arthur Court titled,
"Minerals: Natures Fabulous Jewels", I found, "Because of its unique
structure it possesses piezo-electric properties, which means that, if
quartz of the right shape is subjected to pressure in the right
direction, it will generate, momentarily, a small electric current. This
can be adjusted very precisely by proper shaping and design. Hence
quartz oscillators are used to govern the frequency of all kinds of
electronic gear. There is an opposite effect, too: a small electric
current, applied to a quartz chrystal will generate a pressure wave."
Is this true? Is this relevent? Regards, Duncan Craig
Marc Line
On Sun, 16 Feb 1997, at 12:24:10, Duncan Craig asked questions in
connection with the piezo-electric properties of quartz crystals
>There is an opposite effect, too: a small electric
>current, applied to a quartz chrystal will generate a pressure wave."
>Is this true?
It is indeed true. Alarm watches, for instance, employ two quartz
crystals. One of them serves to regulate the processor clock frequency
and the other acts as the device which generates the sound.
>Is this relevent?
To the drilling of granite, quartz and felspar? I doubt it.
Cheers
Marc
August Matthusen
jhu...@peganet.com wrote:
[snip]
> 3) Reaming is usually done for two reasons. a) for a more accurate size
> and placement and b) to enlarge
> a hole in steps (much harder to take it all in one bite). Even today
> this is "more expensive" in terms
> of time and labor as a second operation, and determines that not all of
> the holes will be reamed. By its
> very nature, reaming implies machines.
>
> Reaming does go faster and can be drilled faster (a "deeper" spiral) BUT
> once again there are other
> aspects. How does one now hold the reamer IN THREE DIRECTIONS
> (accurately) over an open hole upon which
> there is no resting point for the drill, while keeping it correctly
> placed, upright, and spinning? This
> is even more complex than the "one drill per hole" problem.
See the web page at:
http://www.lauralee.com/chrisdunn/index.htm
for a figure on this. The hole was drilled around a central
core which was then broken out. The core was not cylindrical,
it was conical. A conical bit could be placed on the frustrum of
the core for a resting place. This would seem to hold the bit in
place in three dimensions.
Regards,
August Matthusen
August Matthusen
Rodney Small wrote:
>
> August Matthusen wrote:
> >
>
> > > You seem to be admitting that the Egyptians had a current (20th Century)
> > > technology that 19th Century Europeans had no knowledge of. True?
> >
> > Nope. I'm just saying Petrie wouldn't have a wide knowledge of
> > diverse methodologies for drilling thus couldn't assess how they could
> > have been implemented with earlier technology.
>
> he was very knowledgeable about drilling techniques -- that's why his
> being "astonished" carries so much weight.
I'd be interested in seeing more about what he knew; what's
the reference for this?
> > You seem to be saying
> > that the Egyptian's had electricity, ac-generators, cables to
> > conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
> > ferrous metals, for that matter not to mention all the rest of modern
> > technology that would be needed to build up and support this
> > infrastructure. True?
>
> I think that possibility has to be considered if the drilling cannot
> be explained in any other way.
But where is the physical evidence for the existence of any of this
(not to mention iron mines, slag heaps, power stations to run the
generators, a source of power [coal, oil, nuclear], mines for the
power source material, etc.). That's quite a bit to get from one
aberrant drill core.
> [snip]
>
> > First, why is it a lot of melting down? We don't have much
> > evidence of that much drilling, why shouldn't this be a rare tool
> > that was re-used and recycled? Even nowdays, drill-bits are often
> > refurbished and re-used. For that matter, metals and metal tools
> > are often recycled due to their comparative scarcity.
> > Second, what about the work is so high quality that it couldn't
> > have been done with simple tools and a lot of craftsmanship and
> > time?
>
> I was referring not just to the drilling, but to the construction of the
> pyramids and temples. You don't think it was high quality?
That isn't what I wrote. What's so high quality about any of what
you've
noted that couldn't have been done with simple tools and a lot of
craftsmanship and time?
> With
> respect to the Great Pyramid's casing stones, I again quote Petrie:
> "...the mean variation of the cutting of the stone from a straight line
> and from a true square, is but .01 inch on a length of 75 inches up the
> face, an amount of accuracy equal to most modern opticians'
> straight-edges of such a length. These joints, with an area of some 35
> square feet each, were not only worked as finely as this, but cemented
> throughout. Though the stones were brought as close as 1/500 inch, or,
> in fact, into contact, and the mean opening of the joint was but 1/50
> inch, yet the builders manged to fill the joint with cement, despite
> the great area of it, and the weight of the stone to be moved -- some 16
> tons. To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides would be
> careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost
> impossible." See Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (Histories and Mysteries
> of Man, Ltd., London, 1990), p. 13.
Yep, Petrie was amazed by the ingenuity and craftsmanship of the
ancient Egyptians working with primitive tools. I agree with him.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Rodney Small
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:
> >
> > August Matthusen wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > > You seem to be admitting that the Egyptians had a current (20th Century)
> > > > technology that 19th Century Europeans had no knowledge of. True?
> > >
> > > Nope. I'm just saying Petrie wouldn't have a wide knowledge of
> > > diverse methodologies for drilling thus couldn't assess how they could
> > > have been implemented with earlier technology.
> >
> > he was very knowledgeable about drilling techniques -- that's why his
> > being "astonished" carries so much weight.
>
> I'd be interested in seeing more about what he knew; what's
> the reference for this?
See several of Petrie's books including "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh"
and "Seventy Years in Archaeology".
> > > You seem to be saying
> > > that the Egyptian's had electricity, ac-generators, cables to
> > > conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
> > > ferrous metals, for that matter not to mention all the rest of modern
> > > technology that would be needed to build up and support this
> > > infrastructure. True?
> >
> > I think that possibility has to be considered if the drilling cannot
> > be explained in any other way.
>
> But where is the physical evidence for the existence of any of this
> (not to mention iron mines, slag heaps, power stations to run the
> generators, a source of power [coal, oil, nuclear], mines for the
> power source material, etc.). That's quite a bit to get from one
> aberrant drill core.
If the advanced machining was done long before 2600 BC -- say 10,500 BC
-- it would not be that surprising if the technological infrastructure
had disappeared. And again, where are all the tools that the
conventional wisdom says were used in 2600 BC? The "meltdown theory"
by itself cannot explain the meager amount of tools that have been found,
even if you believe that those simple implements can amount for the
sophisticated work that was done, which they can't.
> > [snip]
> >
> > > First, why is it a lot of melting down? We don't have much
> > > evidence of that much drilling, why shouldn't this be a rare tool
> > > that was re-used and recycled? Even nowdays, drill-bits are often
> > > refurbished and re-used. For that matter, metals and metal tools
> > > are often recycled due to their comparative scarcity.
> > > Second, what about the work is so high quality that it couldn't
> > > have been done with simple tools and a lot of craftsmanship and
> > > time?
> >
> > I was referring not just to the drilling, but to the construction of the
> > pyramids and temples. You don't think it was high quality?
>
> That isn't what I wrote. What's so high quality about any of what
> you've
> noted that couldn't have been done with simple tools and a lot of
> craftsmanship and time?
As Dunn points out, many artifacts besides the "aberrant" one show
conclusively that lathes were used. Egyptologists constantly talk about
the importance of "a lot of time" in creating these artifacts without
being able to duplicate the simplest of them. Where is the skeptical
scientific element here?
> > With
> > respect to the Great Pyramid's casing stones, I again quote Petrie:
> > "...the mean variation of the cutting of the stone from a straight line
> > and from a true square, is but .01 inch on a length of 75 inches up the
> > face, an amount of accuracy equal to most modern opticians'
> > straight-edges of such a length. These joints, with an area of some 35
> > square feet each, were not only worked as finely as this, but cemented
> > throughout. Though the stones were brought as close as 1/500 inch, or,
> > in fact, into contact, and the mean opening of the joint was but 1/50
> > inch, yet the builders manged to fill the joint with cement, despite
> > the great area of it, and the weight of the stone to be moved -- some 16
> > tons. To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides would be
> > careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost
> > impossible." See Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (Histories and Mysteries
> > of Man, Ltd., London, 1990), p. 13.
>
> Yep, Petrie was amazed by the ingenuity and craftsmanship of the
> ancient Egyptians working with primitive tools. I agree with him.
Again, I'll believe this "primitive tools" explanation when I see
Egyptologists place 16 ton stones together in the fashion described by
Petrie with "primitive tools".
Rodney Small
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> jhu...@peganet.com wrote:
> [snip]
> > 3) Reaming is usually done for two reasons. a) for a more accurate size
> > and placement and b) to enlarge
> > a hole in steps (much harder to take it all in one bite). Even today
> > this is "more expensive" in terms
> > of time and labor as a second operation, and determines that not all of
> > the holes will be reamed. By its
> > very nature, reaming implies machines.
> >
> > Reaming does go faster and can be drilled faster (a "deeper" spiral) BUT
> > once again there are other
> > aspects. How does one now hold the reamer IN THREE DIRECTIONS
> > (accurately) over an open hole upon which
> > there is no resting point for the drill, while keeping it correctly
> > placed, upright, and spinning? This
> > is even more complex than the "one drill per hole" problem.
>
> http://www.lauralee.com/chrisdunn/index.htm
> for a figure on this. The hole was drilled around a central
> core which was then broken out. The core was not cylindrical,
> it was conical. A conical bit could be placed on the frustrum of
> the core for a resting place. This would seem to hold the bit in
> place in three dimensions.
>
> August Matthusen
I don't think you've addressed Jim's point about "reaming implies
machines", but perhaps he will respond. Both he and Chris Dunn impress
me as being very familiar with drilling techniques.
Regards,
Rodney
Thomas Fenn
Rodney Small wrote:
>
> August Matthusen wrote:
> >
> > Rodney Small wrote:
> > >
> > > August Matthusen wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > > You seem to be admitting that the Egyptians had a current (20th Century)
> > > > > technology that 19th Century Europeans had no knowledge of. True?
> > > >
> > > > Nope. I'm just saying Petrie wouldn't have a wide knowledge of
> > > > diverse methodologies for drilling thus couldn't assess how they could
> > > > have been implemented with earlier technology.
> > >
> > > he was very knowledgeable about drilling techniques -- that's why his
> > > being "astonished" carries so much weight.
> >
> > I'd be interested in seeing more about what he knew; what's
> > the reference for this?
>
> See several of Petrie's books including "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh"
> and "Seventy Years in Archaeology".
>
> > > > that the Egyptian's had electricity, ac-generators, cables to
> > > > conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
> > > > ferrous metals, for that matter not to mention all the rest of modern
> > > > technology that would be needed to build up and support this
> > > > infrastructure. True?
> > >
> > > be explained in any other way.
> >
> > But where is the physical evidence for the existence of any of this
> > (not to mention iron mines, slag heaps, power stations to run the
> > generators, a source of power [coal, oil, nuclear], mines for the
> > power source material, etc.). That's quite a bit to get from one
> > aberrant drill core.
>
> If the advanced machining was done long before 2600 BC -- say 10,500 BC
> -- it would not be that surprising if the technological infrastructure
> conventional wisdom says were used in 2600 BC? The "meltdown theory"
> by itself cannot explain the meager amount of tools that have been found,
> even if you believe that those simple implements can amount for the
> sophisticated work that was done, which they can't.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > evidence of that much drilling, why shouldn't this be a rare tool
> > > > that was re-used and recycled? Even nowdays, drill-bits are often
> > > > refurbished and re-used. For that matter, metals and metal tools
> > > > are often recycled due to their comparative scarcity.
> > > > Second, what about the work is so high quality that it couldn't
> > > > have been done with simple tools and a lot of craftsmanship and
> > > > time?
> > >
> > > pyramids and temples. You don't think it was high quality?
> >
> > That isn't what I wrote. What's so high quality about any of what
> > you've
> > craftsmanship and time?
>
> As Dunn points out, many artifacts besides the "aberrant" one show
A recent episode of Nova potrayed a modern reconstruction experiment
where a crew of Egyptian stonecutters, using ancient techniques, built a
small pyramid in a relatively short period of time. i believe it will
replay again soon. I encourage you to catch it if you can.
Cheers,
Tom Fenn
Jim Huston
maguirre wrote:
> I don't think you've addressed Jim's point about "reaming implies machines", but perhaps he will respond. > Both he and Chris Dunn impress me as being very familiar with drilling techniques.
In Response: I do not think that I made any conclusions. In fact what I
stated were comments meant to address the difficulties of drilling and
the problems in the analysis happening in this thread. We are discussing
the possibilities of what COULD and what COULD NOT be considered as
successful techniques to make this hole in the granite. This and this
alone.
This hole could also be made with EDM or Elecrical Discharge Machining -
and it is not the fact that some maintain that "this can't be..." that
keeps me from the proposal. The fact is that Ultrasonic Drilling fits
the circumstances of the case better than EDM.
Statements about what could and could not occur because of the
"primitive nature" of those people or the claim of impossibility because
"they were not that advanced" are judgements based on beliefs and in
most cases upon unfounded assumptions which are believed to be "self
evident." I am impressed by the fact that someone knowledgeable about
the field being studied is proposing a reasonable analysis based on
correct and careful analysis within the field itself. IT IS ABOUT
TIME... I am very tired of "the answers" when it is obvious that those
answers only stand up if all that is NOT explainable is thrown into a
"religious belief/ritual context.
I have, in common with Chris Dunn, No Preconcieved notion about what
they did and didn't know, let alone what they couldn't have known. When
you capitalize:
> <SNIP> ... Indeed the ultimate machining are grinding and honing THAT ARE DONE WITH TOOLS KNOWN TO THE > EGYPTIANS i.e. Alumina dust, effort and time. It is not generally...<SNIP>
I would point out that with no writings, descriptions, or tools
remaining which could account for anything here, neither you nor anyone
else can state what was "known to the Egyptians." This is ASSUMPTION! In
fact this is the same arguement from the opposite end - we are trying to
figure out what they knew by accounting for the physical evidence.
> This agrees with my conclusion (below) that all was done by grinding (ALUMINA DUST)
I think we would be able to watch them if this were the case... They
would probably still be drilling...
> Also I have discover that the person that claimed that 0.01
> parts on 75 is high accuracy by today standards was Petrie
> (My point 1d below). Clearly he did not have the smallest
> idea what he was talking about. In the XIX century the where
> alrady able to have flats of 1 part in 100000.
Skip the math notation... When you talk about precise "flats" you must
include the size of the surface. The test described by Chris
(approximate 6 inch parallel excluding light along its length) on a
stone surface..?
This is incredible... Light can be seen to shine through a .0005 (half
thousandth) gap between the anvils of a micrometer... Yes this should be
re-tested with better tools as he suggests.
I am most impressed by his descriptions of the "corner radius" at the
juncture of three surfaces and the smooth blending of compound curved
surfaces. Any apprentice that has ever polished a mould after final
machine operations will attest to these difficulties.
Finally, I don't think C.Dunn proposed that he had THE ANSWER or even
the final solution. Only that this is what He had come up with which
satisfied all of the criteria. And he had an independent source find the
same solution.
Yes - my post inferred that reaming = machines, but I do not share the
view that that they could not have had them. Indeed, the evidence says
they did. The proof is upon those who maintain they did not, to show how
these results are reasonably possible otherwise.
Jim Huston
Martin Stower
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:02 -0800, Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>>If the advanced machining was done long before 2600 BC -- say 10,500 BC
>>-- it would not be that surprising if the technological infrastructure
>>had disappeared.
>
>extraordinary statement?
>
>[SNIP]
This of course is where von Daniken has it over the Cayceites: at least
he has _some_ rationale for his high tech tools disappearing.
Why no infrastructure? Because it's on some other planet!
Martin
maguirre
I have to dig my answer that closed the old thread on
machining. It follows.
>I don't think you've addressed Jim's point about "reaming >implies machines", but perhaps he will respond. Both he >and Chris Dunn impress me as being very familiar with >drilling techniques.
Btw Jim knows about machining but Chris Dunn does anybody
that makes reference to ultrasonic machine for the holes
described is ignorant on basic facts about machining. See
below to understand whay. Jim line of reasoning can be
reduced to the statement that the described holes could not
be done with tools. This agrees with my conclusion (below)
that all was done by grinding
Also I have discover that the person that claimed that 0.01
parts on 75 is high accuracy by today standards was Petrie
(My point 1d below). Clearly he did not have the smallest
idea what he was talking about. In the XIX century the where
alrady able to have flats of 1 part in 100000.
========================
Summary on advanced machining in Ancient Egipt.
Several claims have been done on the machining capabilities
in Ancient Egipt. One side have presented supossed cases of
very difficult machining. The other side said this cannot
be. Ultrasonic machining has been mentioned as the only way
to solve some of the machining cases presented. Perhaps it
is time that somebody that knows on ultrasonic machining and
high accuracy speaks.
1)
The hard references provided by this thread are the
following:
1a reference to machining in stone with complex shapes
(including helycal groves and male-female complemetary
conical shapes
1b reference to concave machining on stone (to make a recess
on it)
1c references to high accuracies of relative positioning of
stone blocks besides the fact that they has some type of
adhesive between them
1d references to 0.01 inch in 75 being a high accuracy and
difficult to get by today standards,
1e references to very high tool advance speed (sorry but
this was on one of the first posts and I did not keep it so
I cannot quote the exact value provided)
1f references to differential attack to the two different
phases of granite by the machining method proposed
--------------------------------
The conclusion provided by some Dunn and some 'Independent
Consultant' was that the tool used was ultrasonic machining.
--------------------------------
2)
Ultrasonic machining is a sofisticated tool that Ancient
Egiptyan should not known. If somebody demonstrated that
this type of machining was used in Ancient Egypt the history
of mankind should be rewritten.
Let us deal first with the fact.
With respect to 1a). Ultrasonic machining is not a good tool
to provide complex shapes, it is uterly unable to provide a
conical shape. If somebody proposes this technique to obtain
this shape he demonstrate ignorance on the topic.
With respect to 1b). Ultrasonic machining would be a very
good tool to machine conceve recess of constant and accurate
dimension on stone.
With respect to 1c). Accurate positioning is easier, not
more difficult, with the use of some 'plastic' material in
between. Anyway this is a sideshow it has nothing to do with
ultrasonic machining or any other type of machining.
With respect to 1d). It is loudicrous to claim that 0.01
parts on 75 is high accuracy by today standards. The
flatness of a good quality large size granite block (which
are used often on metrology lab's) is of the order of 0.01
parts on 10000. To claim that an accuracy of 0.01 in 75 is
'very' accurate by today standards reveals ignorance on the
issue
With respect to 1e). It is imposible to obtain the obtain
the speeds that were quoted on the original posting.
Nevertheless it is also imposible to deduce cutting speeds
on stone with only the final shape as data. So I cannot give
any value to any statement of high cutting speed.
Furthermore ultrasonic machining is not a high speed method.
With respect to 1f. Ultrasonic machining does not attack
differently the different phases of granite. Indeed the only
thing that could do that will be chemical attack by e.g. the
atmosphere during the many years that have happened since
the stone where machined
With respect to 2)
Ultrasonic machining is a good system to produce high
accuracy pieces but is not the ultimate machining method.
Indeed the ultimate machining are grinding and honing THAT
ARE DONE WITH TOOLS KNOWN TO THE EGYPTIANS i.e. Alumina
dust, effort and time. It is not generally known that
extremmely high accuracy devices are today done by hand. Of
course we are much better than the Egyptians on metrology
and we can do things much quicker but the principle is the
same
My understanding is that the reference to ultrasonic machine
was done to chose a machining technique with a impresive
name with the only and lonely objective of caussing a strong
impression on the reader. This is what journalism is about.
Don Judy
In support of the Cayceite/Atlantean builder theory, they could have just
packed up the trailer and taken everything back to the Home Office.
DJ
maguirre
Don Judy
In Article<330A8F...@geology.uno.edu>, <tf...@geology.uno.edu> wrote
on Tue, 18 Feb 1997 23:29:37 -0600:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:
> >
> > Again, I'll believe this "primitive tools" explanation when I see
> > Egyptologists place 16 ton stones together in the fashion described by
> > Petrie with "primitive tools".
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rodney
>
> A recent episode of Nova potrayed a modern reconstruction experiment
> where a crew of Egyptian stonecutters, using ancient techniques, built a
> small pyramid in a relatively short period of time. i believe it will
> replay again soon. I encourage you to catch it if you can.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom Fenn
Mr. Small was specifying Egyptologists, while those were Egyptian
stonecutters, although I suppose they could have been Egyptologists stoned on
Cutters.
DJ
Paul V. Heinrich
In article <3324a832...@news.demon.co.uk>,
dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:55:02 -0800, Rodney Small
><rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >If the advanced machining was done long before 2600 BC -- say 10,500 BC
> >-- it would not be that surprising if the technological infrastructure
> >had disappeared.
There are innumerable archaeological sites dating from around 10,500 BC
that have been surveyed, recorded, and, even, excavated within and
adjacent to the Nile Valley. As far as I as have read none of these
sites show anything that would be out of the ordinary for the typical
hunter-gather. How do you explain this?
I can just see it. The hunter-gathers in the suburbs dailey commuting
to be mechanical engineers operating sophisticated machinery on the
Sphinx - pyramid projects. Then they return home to the evening
meal hunted with stone points and spears. My opinion, there is
something wrong with this picture, and its not the arcaheologists'
findings.
> It would be extremely surprising. On what experience do you bases this
> extraordinary statement?
Yours,
Paul V. Heinrich
hein...@intersurf.com
Baton Rouge, LA
August Matthusen
Rodney Small wrote:
>
> August Matthusen wrote:
[snip]
> > the reference for this?
>
> See several of Petrie's books including "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh"
> and "Seventy Years in Archaeology".
Anything more specific, like page numbers?
> > > > You seem to be saying
> > > > that the Egyptian's had electricity, ac-generators, cables to
> > > > conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
> > > > ferrous metals, for that matter not to mention all the rest of modern
> > > > technology that would be needed to build up and support this
> > > > infrastructure. True?
> > >
> > > I think that possibility has to be considered if the drilling cannot
> > > be explained in any other way.
> >
> > But where is the physical evidence for the existence of any of this
> > (not to mention iron mines, slag heaps, power stations to run the
> > generators, a source of power [coal, oil, nuclear], mines for the
> > power source material, etc.). That's quite a bit to get from one
> > aberrant drill core.
>
> If the advanced machining was done long before 2600 BC -- say 10,500 BC
> -- it would not be that surprising if the technological infrastructure
> had disappeared. And again, where are all the tools that the
> conventional wisdom says were used in 2600 BC? The "meltdown theory"
> by itself cannot explain the meager amount of tools that have been found,
> even if you believe that those simple implements can amount for the
> sophisticated work that was done, which they can't.
I see. 12000 years can cause mines and slag heaps to disappear as well
as
a full technological infrastructure but 4000 years isn't enough time for
a few tools to be re-used into oblivion. I'm afraid we disagree on what
can
be done with simple tools.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > First, why is it a lot of melting down? We don't have much
> > > > evidence of that much drilling, why shouldn't this be a rare tool
> > > > that was re-used and recycled? Even nowdays, drill-bits are often
> > > > refurbished and re-used. For that matter, metals and metal tools
> > > > are often recycled due to their comparative scarcity.
> > > > Second, what about the work is so high quality that it couldn't
> > > > have been done with simple tools and a lot of craftsmanship and
> > > > time?
> > >
> > > I was referring not just to the drilling, but to the construction of the
> > > pyramids and temples. You don't think it was high quality?
> >
> > That isn't what I wrote. What's so high quality about any of what
> > you've
> > noted that couldn't have been done with simple tools and a lot of
> > craftsmanship and time?
>
> As Dunn points out, many artifacts besides the "aberrant" one show
> conclusively that lathes were used. Egyptologists constantly talk about
> the importance of "a lot of time" in creating these artifacts without
> being able to duplicate the simplest of them. Where is the skeptical
> scientific element here?
Not exactly. Dunn interprets that lathes were used, others interpret
it differently. As for skepticism, I'm skeptical of Dunn's stuff;
his cathode ray tube, for example. How did the infrastructure needed
to support that vanish in 4000 years?
[snip]
> > Yep, Petrie was amazed by the ingenuity and craftsmanship of the
> > ancient Egyptians working with primitive tools. I agree with him.
>
> Again, I'll believe this "primitive tools" explanation when I see
> Egyptologists place 16 ton stones together in the fashion described by
> Petrie with "primitive tools".
As someone else pointed out Nova pretty much did that on their show
"This Old Pyramid" they also had a more recent episode where they
re-created some Inca stone work by pounding one stone against another.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Robert Nordblom
maguirre <magu...@eoppsun.estec.esa.nl> wrote:
<much snipped>
..
>Indeed the ultimate machining are grinding and honing THAT
>ARE DONE WITH TOOLS KNOWN TO THE EGYPTIANS i.e. Alumina
>dust, effort and time. It is not generally known that
>extremmely high accuracy devices are today done by hand. Of
>course we are much better than the Egyptians on metrology
>and we can do things much quicker but the principle is the
>same
A good example of this is a parabolic mirror used in reflecting
telescopes. Even a novice can produce an acceptable mirror by
following some rather simple procedures. It just takes some time.
Larry J. Elmore
August Matthusen <matt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> As someone else pointed out Nova pretty much did that on their show
> "This Old Pyramid" they also had a more recent episode where they
> re-created some Inca stone work by pounding one stone against another.
Well, they did it on a very small scale. There's a _world_ of difference
from an engineering perspective between hauling the kitchen appliance-sized
stone they used from the quarry across the valley and up the mountain, and
then doing it with one of the truly humongous blocks that were historically
used. Let alone the very precise shaping and fitting together of such huge
blocks (again, very different matter than with a small block as they used).
I don't doubt that they have figured out the very basic elements, but I
strongly doubt they could do the same thing with several-hundred-ton blocks
no matter how many people they used to pull on the ropes.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Larry J. Elmore
Bozeman, Montana
"And they shall beat their swords into plowshares."
--Isaiah 2:4
"History teaches us that those who beat their swords into plowshares
usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords."
--Anon.
wvk
How can the machine tool markings as described by Petrie and confirmed
by Dunn be accounted for if these objects were shaped by hand?
WVK
Edward Eck
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>> > With
>> > respect to the Great Pyramid's casing stones, I again quote Petrie:
>> > "...the mean variation of the cutting of the stone from a straight line
>> > and from a true square, is but .01 inch on a length of 75 inches up the
>> > face, an amount of accuracy equal to most modern opticians'
>> > straight-edges of such a length. These joints, with an area of some 35
>> > square feet each, were not only worked as finely as this, but cemented
>> > throughout. Though the stones were brought as close as 1/500 inch, or,
>> > in fact, into contact, and the mean opening of the joint was but 1/50
>> > inch, yet the builders manged to fill the joint with cement, despite
>> > the great area of it, and the weight of the stone to be moved -- some 16
>> > tons. To merely place such stones in exact contact at the sides would be
>> > careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost
>> > impossible." See Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (Histories and Mysteries
>> > of Man, Ltd., London, 1990), p. 13.
>>
>Rodney
Cut a block with a roughly flat top. Put a solution of fine silica and
water on top of the block. Position another block on top of the first
block. Move the top block back and forth, even slightly. The slurry
will both lubricate and grind until the two contacting faces are very
nearly pararel; the space between them will be filled with water and
stone dust. If you had added a binder to the fine silica and water
before the top block had been added, the mix would harden into cement
in situ.
Martin Stower
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>As Dunn points out, many artifacts besides the "aberrant" one show
>conclusively that lathes were used.
Is anyone denying that lathes were used for these items?
>Egyptologists constantly talk about
>the importance of "a lot of time" in creating these artifacts without
>being able to duplicate the simplest of them.
It's far from obvious that an Egyptologist should be able to reproduce
the work of an Egyptian master craftsman, who dedicated his whole life
to the perfection of his skill. To suggest such a thing is to deploy
a prejudice which crops up time and time again in these discussions:
an ignorance of - and devaluing of - skilled manual labour.
To get a clue what master craftsmanship entailed - before it became a
rarity - take a look at the kind of work a 19th century apprentice
stonemason - working in Bath stone, say - was expected to produce as
his masterpiece. Setting aside the historical evidence, and applying
Rodney's logic, I'd have to say, that if _I_ can't pick up hammer and
chisel, and reproduce that work, then I'm not entitled to say it was
done by human beings. Skill makes a difference - a big difference.
I'd suggest the following experiment: try some wood turning, and then
look at the work produced by someone who's _really_ good at it. Then
try saying that it wasn't skill which made the difference.
>Again, I'll believe this "primitive tools" explanation when I see
>Egyptologists place 16 ton stones together in the fashion described by
>Petrie with "primitive tools".
Rodney, what's _your_ explanation?
Martin
Martin Stower
wvk <w...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>How can the machine tool markings as described by Petrie and confirmed
>by Dunn be accounted for if these objects were shaped by hand?
>
>WVK
No-one's saying that tools weren't used in those cases.
Not all tools are machine tools.
Martin
wvk
> >conclusively that lathes were used.
>
> Is anyone denying that lathes were used for these items?
According to the recent Nova show the GP was built without
"modern surveying equipment, the wheel or even the pully"
Should they have added "but amazingly the ancient egyptians
invented and used the lathe to manufacture their stone artifacts"
>
> >Egyptologists constantly talk about
> >the importance of "a lot of time" in creating these artifacts without
> >being able to duplicate the simplest of them.
>
> It's far from obvious that an Egyptologist should be able to reproduce
> the work of an Egyptian master craftsman, who dedicated his whole life
> to the perfection of his skill. To suggest such a thing is to deploy
> a prejudice which crops up time and time again in these discussions:
> an ignorance of - and devaluing of - skilled manual labour.
>
> To get a clue what master craftsmanship entailed - before it became a
> rarity - take a look at the kind of work a 19th century apprentice
> stonemason - working in Bath stone, say - was expected to produce as
> his masterpiece. Setting aside the historical evidence, and applying
> Rodney's logic, I'd have to say, that if _I_ can't pick up hammer and
> chisel, and reproduce that work, then I'm not entitled to say it was
> done by human beings. Skill makes a difference - a big difference.
Were they skilled enought to leave evidence of machine tool work?
>
> I'd suggest the following experiment: try some wood turning, and then
> look at the work produced by someone who's _really_ good at it. Then
> try saying that it wasn't skill which made the difference.
>
> MartinWVK
Martin Stower
wvk <w...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>Martin Stower wrote:
>>
>> Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >As Dunn points out, many artifacts besides the "aberrant" one show
>> >conclusively that lathes were used.
>>
>> Is anyone denying that lathes were used for these items?
>
>According to the recent Nova show the GP was built without
>"modern surveying equipment, the wheel or even the pully"
How exactly is this relevant? Are you suggesting that the Great
Pyramid was produced on a lathe?
>Should they have added "but amazingly the ancient egyptians
>invented and used the lathe to manufacture their stone artifacts"
I don't see why they should have. First of all, they weren't
discussing the relevant artefacts. Second: what's so amazing?
The basic principle of the lathe is a simple one. Do you think
the modern lathe emerged fully developed, with no prior history
of development? Or that lathes have always been like the modern
ones - or could only be like the modern ones?
>Were they skilled enought to leave evidence of machine tool work?
As per my other reply: not all tools are machine tools. Or do you
think there were no drills, before the electric ones?
Martin
ber...@whidbey.net
"Larry J. Elmore" <ljel...@montana.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>August Matthusen <matt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
>> As someone else pointed out Nova pretty much did that on their show
>> "This Old Pyramid" they also had a more recent episode where they
>> re-created some Inca stone work by pounding one stone against another.
>Well, they did it on a very small scale. There's a _world_ of difference
>from an engineering perspective between hauling the kitchen appliance-sized
>stone they used from the quarry across the valley and up the mountain, and
>then doing it with one of the truly humongous blocks that were historically
>used. Let alone the very precise shaping and fitting together of such huge
>blocks (again, very different matter than with a small block as they used).
>I don't doubt that they have figured out the very basic elements, but I
>strongly doubt they could do the same thing with several-hundred-ton blocks
>no matter how many people they used to pull on the ropes.
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------
>Larry J. Elmore
>Bozeman, Montana
I seem to recall from somewhere that the Gateway to the Sun at
Tiahuanaco is the largest known single block of dressed stone. (How
you define "largest", I don't know.) It is reported as being 3mX3.75m
with an estimated weight of 10 tons. Also the source of the material,
andesite, is a pretty fair distance away. Couple this with no major
waterways, no major population centers and a limited working window
(gets messy in the high Andes in the winter) and you have an
impressive feat.
--
Clever Hands
Blessed is the man with a wife...
... for he and his faults will never be strangers.
Gtrmon
<ber...@whidbey.net> wrote:
>
> I seem to recall from somewhere that the Gateway to the Sun at
> Tiahuanaco is the largest known single block of dressed stone. (How
> you define "largest", I don't know.) It is reported as being 3mX3.75m
> with an estimated weight of 10 tons. Also the source of the material,
> andesite, is a pretty fair distance away. Couple this with no major
> waterways, no major population centers and a limited working window
> (gets messy in the high Andes in the winter) and you have an
> impressive feat.
>
> --
> Clever Hands
> Blessed is the man with a wife...
> .... for he and his faults will never be strangers.
>
And the locals in the 16c. said the stuff just appeared overnight...
DJ
Marc Line
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, at 18:05:44, Martin Stower cajoled electrons into
this
>wvk <w...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>>
>>According to the recent Nova show the GP was built without
>>"modern surveying equipment, the wheel or even the pully"
>
>How exactly is this relevant? Are you suggesting that the Great
>Pyramid was produced on a lathe?
Martin old chap, you are forgetting the prototype, the Great Cone! The
Great Pyramid was simply a development of the Great Cone. Simply invert
one's cone and file four flats on it. Oh and don't forget to eat the
ice-cream first lest it be taken as the remnants of a lather! If it's a
99, the flake can also be hollowed out to make a pretty impressive Sokar
Boat! ;))
>>Were they skilled enought to leave evidence of machine tool work?
>
>As per my other reply: not all tools are machine tools. Or do you
>think there were no drills, before the electric ones?
On a more (slightly) serious note, and mindful of the futility of *that*
exercise, I should suggest that the principle of the drill was utilised
if not conceived with the use of a bowed spindle rotating in a tinder
hole. Although, of course, there may be other more human models from
which to draw.
Regards
Marc
XX
Perform robotomy on email address.
dtak
I will jump in with both of my laymen feet. What the heck...
In article <330A9A...@peganet.com>, jhu...@peganet.com wrote:
> Yes - my post inferred that reaming = machines,<<
And I think the evidence you and others are citing supports that.
Perhaps those that cry foul at the word machine, need to look at the definition:
"a mechancial apparatus...mechanism..a device that transmits or modifies
force or motion...also called simple machine, any of six or more elementary
mechanisims, as the _lever, wheel, axle, pulley, screw, wedge, and inclined
plane_."
So, who needs electricty? And what is the big deal of someone 4000 years
ago calling themselves a "mechanical engineer"? That's what these people
were!
Can't one civilization that knows how to rub two sticks together, grind
wheat etc, _weave cloth_, work gold, build ships, create pottery, build
mathematically precise constructions, be given some credit for taking all
that knowledge and constructing the ancient equivilant of a lathe or a
drill?
I saw the Nova show, and coming from a lifetime of construction I was
struck by how these "experts" had their blinders on. At stonehenge the
'expert' said levering and cribbing was "too slow" but he was more than
willing to theorize those folks spents weeks bulding dirt ramps every time
they wanted to lift something - not just at stonehenge but anywhere one
stone sits atop another..
With all the wood that was supposed to be laying around, there could have
been some very large and very effective lifting devices created. Again we
are told "no wheel" but they could apparently cut and lay tracks and fashon
sleds according to the 'expert' theories. They had bronze daggers but "no
metal tools." Huh?? They had no simple wheel but artifacts show they had
round vases and pots. Huh?
Its all pet theories that ignore what one has to offer the other. And the
theories work overtime trying to make these long gone people "primative"
when they were anything but.
The Egyptians are given all kinds of credit for being math whizes, but no
one wants to give them credit for building simple machines to expedite and
improve the accuracy of their work, or use oxen instead of men to haul
things around.
Tunnel vision...
Anyway, plenty of ammunition for the detractors out there...let it fly..
dtak
Paul V. Heinrich
In article <5ei633$2...@news.whidbey.com>,
ber...@whidbey.net wrote:
.....material omittedd.....
> I seem to recall from somewhere that the Gateway to the Sun at
> Tiahuanaco is the largest known single block of dressed stone. (How
> you define "largest", I don't know.) It is reported as being 3mX3.75m
> with an estimated weight of 10 tons. Also the source of the material,
> andesite, is a pretty fair distance away. Couple this with no major
> waterways, no major population centers and a limited working window
> (gets messy in the high Andes in the winter) and you have an
> impressive feat.
Yes, but it can be done. A couple of weeks ago, NOVA had a
program about Stonehedge in which, using nothing but wood,
bark cordage, and simple stonemasonary, a group of about
150 people moved a 40-ton block of concrete* across country
set two upright, and place a 10-ton lintel on top of them. The
uprights were 20/30 ft high. What they did was far more
impressive than the "Gateway to the Sun". Impressive yes, but
well within the available technology. Also, they did not
even need waterways. So that is also not a problem.
*The concrete was in the shape of the uprights and lintel
at stonehedge.
As proof of it there is now a lone set of saren stones with
a lintel on top of them in the English countryside. I know
that I am not using proper terminology. So it goes.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
hein...@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
"To persons uninstructed in natural history, their country
or seaside stroll is a walk through a gallery filled with
wonderful works of art, nine-tenths of which have their faces
turned to the wall."
- T. H. Huxley
Marc Line
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, at 00:40:40, Paul V. Heinrich cajoled electrons
into this
Re: Building the "Gateway to the Sun"
>A couple of weeks ago, NOVA had a
>program about Stonehedge in which, using nothing but wood,
>bark cordage, and simple stonemasonary, a group of about
>150 people moved a 40-ton block of concrete* across country
>set two upright, and place a 10-ton lintel on top of them. The
>uprights were 20/30 ft high. What they did was far more
>impressive than the "Gateway to the Sun". Impressive yes, but
>well within the available technology. Also, they did not
>even need waterways. So that is also not a problem.
>
>*The concrete was in the shape of the uprights and lintel
>at stonehedge.
>
>As proof of it there is now a lone set of saren stones with
>a lintel on top of them in the English countryside. I know
>that I am not using proper terminology. So it goes.
Quoting from an article in the December 96 issue of British Archaeology,
page 5, the following:-
"The Prehistoric builders of stone circles and other megalithic
monuments may have had an easier task than has traditionally been
thought, according to an engineer from Oxfordshire."
Then, paraphrasing:-
The notion that hundreds of people would need to be involved to lift the
huge monoliths at places such as Stonehenge or the Early Neolithic
"Portal Dolmen" tombs such as Pentre Ifan in Wales, where a heavy
'capstone' rests atop 3 uprights, may well be gross overestimates.
An engineer, Cliff Osenton from Banbury, Oxon, not only claims that a
mere handful of people could have accomplished the task, he also gave a
demonstration in November 1996 and showed that ONE man could lift a
rough-hewn, 5 tonne block of sandstone 2ft off the ground in 2 hours
using only a 12ft wooden pole, with a second man stacking wedges under
the stone. Using his system, as yet unpublished, 1 man could have
raised the capstone (5 tonnes) of a typical portal dolmen in a few
hours, 2 men could have raised a typical Stonehenge Lintel (10 tonnes),
whilst 8 men would have been needed to raise the uprights of the
Stonehenge Trilithons (40 tonnes).
Whilst the system is similar to one proposed at Stonehenge years ago, in
which the rising stone is "see-sawed" and supported by a pile of
timbers, the crucial difference is that Mr Osenton's system places the
supporting timbers in a triangular fashion, thus allowing the stone to
wobble slightly which grants maximum mechanical advantage to the lever.
A new departure here is the notion that the capstones of portal dolmens
might have been raised before the uprights, the latter being fitted in
later. The uprights could have been raised in a similar way, with the
base resting against a trench into which the stone is dropped, with a
post at the back of the trench to direct and support the stone on its
way down.
Witnessing the demonstration was Dr Aubrey Burl, a leading authority on
stone circles. He said that it was "very interesting" and clearly
showed that a capstone could be raised by very few men. The idea that
the capstone was raised prior to the installation of the uprights also
makes sense of the fact that one of the uprights is usually pointed,
allowing the capstone to be swivelled from that upright onto the other
two.
Personal comment:
Humankind is naturally inventive. The brain, when faced with a
necessity, invariably responds with invention. With our computers,
lasers, satellites and all the other accoutrements of late 20th century
living, it is, perhaps, all too easy to forget that the people who lived
5000+ years ago, were every bit as smart as we are, though maybe in
different ways. It would serve us well to consider the possibility that
when one's structural world is a thing of stones and wood, one might be
expected to become quite adept at manipulating stones and wood. After
all, *we're* pretty damned smart with steel and concrete, and if there's
anyone who doesn't believe that, I might just write a book about it!! :)
(Still puzzled by those diorite flasks though!)
Regards
Marc Line - Director of Archaeology (B.H.A.S.)
Perform robotomy in email address.
Larry J. Elmore
Marc Line <ma...@bosagate.demon.spamscamscram.co.uk> wrote in article
<F$e7HFAR0VDzEw$R...@bosagate.demon.co.uk>...
> The notion that hundreds of people would need to be involved to lift the
> huge monoliths at places such as Stonehenge or the Early Neolithic
> "Portal Dolmen" tombs such as Pentre Ifan in Wales, where a heavy
> 'capstone' rests atop 3 uprights, may well be gross overestimates.
>
> An engineer, Cliff Osenton from Banbury, Oxon, not only claims that a
> mere handful of people could have accomplished the task, he also gave a
> demonstration in November 1996 and showed that ONE man could lift a
> rough-hewn, 5 tonne block of sandstone 2ft off the ground in 2 hours
> using only a 12ft wooden pole, with a second man stacking wedges under
> the stone. Using his system, as yet unpublished, 1 man could have
> raised the capstone (5 tonnes) of a typical portal dolmen in a few
> hours, 2 men could have raised a typical Stonehenge Lintel (10 tonnes),
> whilst 8 men would have been needed to raise the uprights of the
> Stonehenge Trilithons (40 tonnes).
>
> Whilst the system is similar to one proposed at Stonehenge years ago, in
> which the rising stone is "see-sawed" and supported by a pile of
> timbers, the crucial difference is that Mr Osenton's system places the
> supporting timbers in a triangular fashion, thus allowing the stone to
> wobble slightly which grants maximum mechanical advantage to the lever.
This sounds very much like the procedure that was used by the descendants
of the last of the "Long-Ears" to raise one of the Easter Island monoliths
upright onto its platform and then to raise a red stone "top-knot" onto its
head, as demonstrateed to, described and photographed by Thor Heyerdahl in
"Aku-Aku".
> (Still puzzled by those diorite flasks though!)
Yes, that's what really puzzles me... Though the brown granite
"sarcophagus" as described by Petrie is intriguing, also.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Larry J. Elmore
Bozeman, Montana
"And they shall beat their swords into plowshares."
James W. Meritt
In article <330A6B...@erols.com>, rsm...@erols.com says...
;August Matthusen wrote:
;> Rodney Small wrote:
;> > August Matthusen wrote:
;> > > You seem to be saying
;> > > that the Egyptian's had electricity, ac-generators, cables to
;> > > conduct the power, metal machining, accurate measuring tools, and
;> > > ferrous metals, for that matter not to mention all the rest of modern
;> > > technology that would be needed to build up and support this
;> > > infrastructure. True?
;> >
;> > I think that possibility has to be considered if the drilling cannot
;> > be explained in any other way.
;>
;> But where is the physical evidence for the existence of any of this
;> (not to mention iron mines, slag heaps, power stations to run the
;> generators, a source of power [coal, oil, nuclear], mines for the
;> power source material, etc.). That's quite a bit to get from one
;> aberrant drill core.
;
;If the advanced machining was done long before 2600 BC -- say 10,500 BC
;-- it would not be that surprising if the technological infrastructure
;had disappeared.
Have you looked into the waste disposal problem? There is no way that I am
aware of to get rid of nuclear wastes in a few thousand years, and we would
STILL notice the high background radiation. And slag never decays. It's
rock. So one would expect to see mountains of thermally-fused rock. While
the mine might fill in, they are somewhat easer to identify tha, say, the
hall of a buried building - which there doesn't seem to be difficulty
identifying.
Please do not make the mistake of forgetting the immense infrastructure
behind every single technological item. If you drank a cup of coffee this
morning and you didn't live in South America, a transportation infrastructure
(complete with warehouses, ships,...) was necessary to get the coffee to you
and a lot of technological innovation was probably needed for that cup.
If a single item of advanced machining equipment was used, I would be stunned
that the technological infrastructure disappeared. It takes a LOT to build
the tools to build the tools to build the ... and a lot of it simply will not
decompose, at least not within the lifetime of this planet under the
conditions that exist vaguely within the biosphere - or a few miles of it.
Jim Meritt
Martin Stower
dt...@alaska.net (dtak) wrote:
>Perhaps those that cry foul at the word machine, need to look at the definition:
>"a mechancial apparatus...mechanism..a device that transmits or modifies
>force or motion...also called simple machine, any of six or more elementary
>mechanisims, as the _lever, wheel, axle, pulley, screw, wedge, and inclined
>plane_."
Fine - if everyone was using the word in this sense. It's obvious IMO
that some people aren't - that they're using `machine tools' as a
synonym for `power tools'.
No-one's denying that `machines' - in the sense defined above - were used.
Yes, certain items were turned; others were cut with tube-drills; of course
they were.
What's in dispute is precisely the claim - as made by Chris Dunn - that
the tools _must_ have been power tools, much like modern ones - when not
only the tools, but also the infrastructure to support them, are entirely
absent from the archaeological record.
What bedevils these discussions is a failure to understand that the same
basic principles are embodied in modern as in ancient technologies - that
invoking the magic formula `high tech' is no explanation at all - that
only by reference to basic principles can we hope to understand how
engineering problems - ancient _or_ modern - are solved.
The Old Kingdom Egyptians certainly applied several of the basic principles
- the elementary mechanisms - listed above: the lever; the axle (for lathes);
the wedge; and the inclined plane. Those IMO could take them a long way.
On using oxen instead of men: teams of men could co-ordinate their work -
and such teams could be co-ordinated - much better than could teams of
oxen. I think that's one of the most important principles they applied.
Martin
Rodney Small
wvk wrote:
>
> Martin Stower wrote:
> >
> > Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
> >
> > >As Dunn points out, many artifacts besides the "aberrant" one show
> > >conclusively that lathes were used.
> >
> > Is anyone denying that lathes were used for these items?
>
> "modern surveying equipment, the wheel or even the pully"
>
> invented and used the lathe to manufacture their stone artifacts"
Excellent point and another example of Egyptologists not having their
story together. Martin seems to think the conventional wisdom says that
lathes were used, but Nova says no. Which is it???
By the way Martin, back in October when I began this thread, you said you
were going to check out the core that Dunn thinks may have been
ultrasonically drilled. Specifically, you wrote:
> I suggest the first thing we need to do is track down the actual core.
> I guess the Petrie Museum would be the place to start. I'll make some
> enquiries, when I can find the time.
Any progress?
Regards,
Rodney
Rodney Small
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:
> >
> > August Matthusen wrote:
> > > I'd be interested in seeing more about what he knew; what's
> > > the reference for this?
> >
> > See several of Petrie's books including "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh"
> > and "Seventy Years in Archaeology".
>
> Anything more specific, like page numbers?
Sorry, I don't have Petrie's books handy, but I'll try and dig something
out.
[snip]
> I see. 12000 years can cause mines and slag heaps to disappear as well
> as
> a full technological infrastructure but 4000 years isn't enough time for
> a few tools to be re-used into oblivion.
A _few_ tools? Don't you mean 99% of them?
[snip]
> Not exactly. Dunn interprets that lathes were used, others interpret
> it differently.
But the legendary Martin Stower seems to agree with Dunn! Where do you
come down on this issue?
As for skepticism, I'm skeptical of Dunn's stuff;
> his cathode ray tube, for example. How did the infrastructure needed
> to support that vanish in 4000 years?
Again, you're assuming it was 4000, and not 12,500, or maybe even more
years.
[snip]
> > Again, I'll believe this "primitive tools" explanation when I see
> > Egyptologists place 16 ton stones together in the fashion described by
> > Petrie with "primitive tools".
>
> As someone else pointed out Nova pretty much did that on their show
> "This Old Pyramid"
Oh come on! You're now getting into the realm of fantasy. "This Old
Pyramid" was a complete farce, proving absolutely nothing. What was the
biggest stone Lehner and company moved -- a ton or two? All the builders
of the Great Pyramid did was raise stones weighing more than 27 tons to a
height of more than 200 feet and then position them into place them far
more precisely than Lehner and company postioned their small stones.
> they also had a more recent episode where they
> re-created some Inca stone work by pounding one stone against another.
Specifically, what work? No doubt "some Inca stone work" can be
duplicated -- how about the sophisticated work?
>
> Regards,
> August Matthusen
Regards,
Rodney
Rodney Small
Jim Huston wrote:
>
> maguirre wrote:
>
> > I don't think you've addressed Jim's point about "reaming implies machines", but perhaps he will respond. > Both he and Chris Dunn impress
me as being very f
>
>
>
> stated were comments meant to address the difficulties of drilling and
> the problems in the analysis happening in this thread. We are discussing
> the possibilities of what COULD and what COULD NOT be considered as
> successful techniques to make this hole in the granite. This and this
> alone.
>
> This hole could also be made with EDM or Elecrical Discharge Machining -
> and it is not the fact that some maintain that "this can't be..." that
> keeps me from the proposal. The fact is that Ultrasonic Drilling fits
> the circumstances of the case better than EDM.
>
> Statements about what could and could not occur because of the
> "primitive nature" of those people or the claim of impossibility because
> "they were not that advanced" are judgements based on beliefs and in
> most cases upon unfounded assumptions which are believed to be "self
> evident." I am impressed by the fact that someone knowledgeable about
> the field being studied is proposing a reasonable analysis based on
> correct and careful analysis within the field itself. IT IS ABOUT
> TIME... I am very tired of "the answers" when it is obvious that those
> answers only stand up if all that is NOT explainable is thrown into a
> "religious belief/ritual context.
>
> I have, in common with Chris Dunn, No Preconcieved notion about what
> they did and didn't know, let alone what they couldn't have known. When
> you capitalize:
>
> > <SNIP> ... Indeed the ultimate machining are grinding and honing THAT ARE DONE WITH TOOLS KNOWN TO THE > EGYPTIANS i.e. Alumina dust, effort
and time. It is
>
> I would point out that with no writings, descriptions, or tools
> remaining which could account for anything here, neither you nor anyone
> else can state what was "known to the Egyptians." This is ASSUMPTION! In
> fact this is the same arguement from the opposite end - we are trying to
> figure out what they knew by accounting for the physical evidence.
>
> > This agrees with my conclusion (below) that all was done by grinding (ALUMINA DUST)
>
> I think we would be able to watch them if this were the case... They
> would probably still be drilling...
>
> > Also I have discover that the person that claimed that 0.01
>
> > parts on 75 is high accuracy by today standards was Petrie
>
> > (My point 1d below). Clearly he did not have the smallest
>
> > idea what he was talking about. In the XIX century the where
>
> > alrady able to have flats of 1 part in 100000.
>
>
>
> include the size of the surface. The test described by Chris
> (approximate 6 inch parallel excluding light along its length) on a
> stone surface..?
> This is incredible... Light can be seen to shine through a .0005 (half
> thousandth) gap between the anvils of a micrometer... Yes this should be
> re-tested with better tools as he suggests.
>
> I am most impressed by his descriptions of the "corner radius" at the
> juncture of three surfaces and the smooth blending of compound curved
> surfaces. Any apprentice that has ever polished a mould after final
> machine operations will attest to these difficulties.
>
> Finally, I don't think C.Dunn proposed that he had THE ANSWER or even
> the final solution. Only that this is what He had come up with which
> satisfied all of the criteria. And he had an independent source find the
> same solution.
>
> Yes - my post inferred that reaming = machines, but I do not share the
> view that that they could not have had them. Indeed, the evidence says
> they did. The proof is upon those who maintain they did not, to show how
> these results are reasonably possible otherwise.
>
> Jim Huston
Terrific post. Let's see Lehner and his gang ream without machines. Or
maybe the other geniuses on this board can do so. Anybody game?
Regards,
Rodney
August Matthusen
Rodney Small wrote:
>
> August Matthusen wrote:
> >
> > Rodney Small wrote:
> > >
> > > August Matthusen wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > I'd be interested in seeing more about what he knew; what's
> > > > the reference for this?
> > >
> > > See several of Petrie's books including "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh"
> > > and "Seventy Years in Archaeology".
> >
> > Anything more specific, like page numbers?
>
> Sorry, I don't have Petrie's books handy, but I'll try and dig something
> out.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I see. 12000 years can cause mines and slag heaps to disappear as well
> > as
> > a full technological infrastructure but 4000 years isn't enough time for
> > a few tools to be re-used into oblivion.
>
> A _few_ tools? Don't you mean 99% of them?
With regards to the cores, I mean 100% of the few tools.
How many cores were there, 7? How many bits are needed
to drill these? Remelting and recasting tube bits doesn't
require the leap of faith required to propose a ultrasonic
drill, the tools to assemble it, the tools to make the tools,
the electricity to run it, the generators, the power source,
or all the concomitant tools to produce them. Where are all
of *these* implements? Where are the wastes from the production of
all of these? Like slag heaps from processing iron ores and fly
ash from coal use or nuclear waste for power? Or was there some
other magical power source?
> [snip]
>
> > Not exactly. Dunn interprets that lathes were used, others interpret
> > it differently.
>
> But the legendary Martin Stower seems to agree with Dunn! Where do you
> come down on this issue?
Nope, Dunn wants power tools Martin doesn't. I don't have a
problem with that. I certainly hope Martin hasn't been relegated
into the realm of the legendary; I quite enjoy corresponding with him.
Here's Martin's statement on tools:
[begin quoted post from Martin]
[end quote]
> As for skepticism, I'm skeptical of Dunn's stuff;
> > his cathode ray tube, for example. How did the infrastructure needed
> > to support that vanish in 4000 years?
>
> Again, you're assuming it was 4000, and not 12,500, or maybe even more
> years.
Sure. Why would you suggest or assume it's 12500 years? Even given
12500 years where is the physical evidence for the infrastructure
other than an interpretation of glyph? Where's the waste from all
this technology?
> [snip]
>
> > > Again, I'll believe this "primitive tools" explanation when I see
> > > Egyptologists place 16 ton stones together in the fashion described by
> > > Petrie with "primitive tools".
> >
> > As someone else pointed out Nova pretty much did that on their show
> > "This Old Pyramid"
>
> Oh come on! You're now getting into the realm of fantasy. "This Old
> Pyramid" was a complete farce, proving absolutely nothing. What was the
> biggest stone Lehner and company moved -- a ton or two? All the builders
> of the Great Pyramid did was raise stones weighing more than 27 tons to a
> height of more than 200 feet and then position them into place them far
> more precisely than Lehner and company postioned their small stones.
See some more of the Novas. As Marc Line and Paul Heinrich wrote
about another Nova regarding moving large stones:
[begin quote]
Marc Line wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, at 00:40:40, Paul V. Heinrich cajoled electrons
> into this
>
> Re: Building the "Gateway to the Sun"
>
> >A couple of weeks ago, NOVA had a
> >program about Stonehedge in which, using nothing but wood,
> >bark cordage, and simple stonemasonary, a group of about
> >150 people moved a 40-ton block of concrete* across country
> >set two upright, and place a 10-ton lintel on top of them. The
> >uprights were 20/30 ft high. What they did was far more
> >impressive than the "Gateway to the Sun". Impressive yes, but
> >well within the available technology. Also, they did not
> >even need waterways. So that is also not a problem.
> >
> >*The concrete was in the shape of the uprights and lintel
> >at stonehedge.
> >
> >As proof of it there is now a lone set of saren stones with
> >a lintel on top of them in the English countryside. I know
> >that I am not using proper terminology. So it goes.
>
> Quoting from an article in the December 96 issue of British Archaeology,
> page 5, the following:-
>
> "The Prehistoric builders of stone circles and other megalithic
> monuments may have had an easier task than has traditionally been
> thought, according to an engineer from Oxfordshire."
>
> Then, paraphrasing:-
>
> The notion that hundreds of people would need to be involved to lift the
> huge monoliths at places such as Stonehenge or the Early Neolithic
> "Portal Dolmen" tombs such as Pentre Ifan in Wales, where a heavy
> 'capstone' rests atop 3 uprights, may well be gross overestimates.
>
> An engineer, Cliff Osenton from Banbury, Oxon, not only claims that a
> mere handful of people could have accomplished the task, he also gave a
> demonstration in November 1996 and showed that ONE man could lift a
> rough-hewn, 5 tonne block of sandstone 2ft off the ground in 2 hours
> using only a 12ft wooden pole, with a second man stacking wedges under
> the stone. Using his system, as yet unpublished, 1 man could have
> raised the capstone (5 tonnes) of a typical portal dolmen in a few
> hours, 2 men could have raised a typical Stonehenge Lintel (10 tonnes),
> whilst 8 men would have been needed to raise the uprights of the
> Stonehenge Trilithons (40 tonnes).
>
> Whilst the system is similar to one proposed at Stonehenge years ago, in
> which the rising stone is "see-sawed" and supported by a pile of
> timbers, the crucial difference is that Mr Osenton's system places the
> supporting timbers in a triangular fashion, thus allowing the stone to
> wobble slightly which grants maximum mechanical advantage to the lever.
>
> A new departure here is the notion that the capstones of portal dolmens
> might have been raised before the uprights, the latter being fitted in
> later. The uprights could have been raised in a similar way, with the
> base resting against a trench into which the stone is dropped, with a
> post at the back of the trench to direct and support the stone on its
> way down.
>
> Witnessing the demonstration was Dr Aubrey Burl, a leading authority on
> stone circles. He said that it was "very interesting" and clearly
> showed that a capstone could be raised by very few men. The idea that
> the capstone was raised prior to the installation of the uprights also
> makes sense of the fact that one of the uprights is usually pointed,
> allowing the capstone to be swivelled from that upright onto the other
> two.
>
[end quote]
> > they also had a more recent episode where they
> > re-created some Inca stone work by pounding one stone against another.
>
> Specifically, what work? No doubt "some Inca stone work" can be
> duplicated -- how about the sophisticated work?
They replicated fitting the stones together so that "you couldn't
a knife between them"
Regards,
August Matthusen
Paul V. Heinrich
In article <330F34...@ix.netcom.com>,
matt...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Rodney Small wrote:
> >
> > August Matthusen wrote:
> > >
> > > Rodney Small wrote:
........material omitted.......
> > >I see. 12000 years can cause mines and slag heaps
> > >to disappear as well as a full technological
> > >infrastructure but 4000 years isn't enough time for
> > >a few tools to be re-used into oblivion.
There is another problem of evidence here. The ice cores
taken in Antarctica and Greenland actually contain a generalized
record of the smelting and industrial development within China,
Europe, and other parts of the world. Essentially, pollution
generated by smelting and metal industries were carried by
atmospheric circulation into the polar regions. Snow then
carried the pollution down onto the ice caps where it was
buried and incorporated into the ice sheet. Variations in
the concentration of chemical compounds, e.g. such as
sulphates, clearly mark periods of known metal working in
by the Europeans, Chinese, and others. There was an article
in Science about this. Unfortunately, I cannot find the exact
citation.
Significantly, there no such concentrations for
9,000-13,000 year period. I find it difficult to believe
that a technologically advanced civilization could have
existed around 12,000 B.P. and not created significant
pollution at some point in its development. If there
was such pollution, there should be some signature in
the ice cores.
> > A _few_ tools? Don't you mean 99% of them?
>
> With regards to the cores, I mean 100% of the few tools.
> How many cores were there, 7? How many bits are needed
> to drill these? Remelting and recasting tube bits doesn't
> require the leap of faith required to propose a ultrasonic
> drill, the tools to assemble it, the tools to make the tools,
> the electricity to run it, the generators, the power source,
> or all the concomitant tools to produce them. Where are all
> of *these* implements? Where are the wastes from the production of
> all of these? Like slag heaps from processing iron ores and fly
> ash from coal use or nuclear waste for power? Or was there some
> other magical power source?
This thread reminds me of chasing Invisible Pink Unicorns.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
hein...@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
"Afterall, if the present is *not* the key to
the past, it is at least *a* key to the past."
-Flessa (1993) in Taphonomic Approaches to
Time Resolution in Fossil Assemblages (The
Paleontological Society)
Rodney Small
August Matthusen wrote:
[snip]
> With regards to the cores, I mean 100% of the few tools.
> How many cores were there, 7? How many bits are needed
> to drill these? Remelting and recasting tube bits doesn't
> require the leap of faith required to propose a ultrasonic
> drill, the tools to assemble it, the tools to make the tools,
> the electricity to run it, the generators, the power source,
> or all the concomitant tools to produce them. Where are all
> of *these* implements? Where are the wastes from the production of
> all of these? Like slag heaps from processing iron ores and fly
> ash from coal use or nuclear waste for power? Or was there some
> other magical power source?
Maybe there was another power source -- who knows? My point (and
Dunn's) is that there was a vast amount of sophisticated work done
at Giza, supposedly in the 3rd millennium BC, and yet there are
almost no tools from that era remaining. Why not?
[snip]
> No-one's denying that `machines' - in the sense defined above - were
> used.
> Yes, certain items were turned; others were cut with tube-drills; of
> course
> they were.
I think you're wrong here. In the Nova shows, there seems to be a
consensus that the ancient Egyptians did everything by hand --
simple wood and copper implements, no machines, no lathes.
[snip]
> See some more of the Novas.
I've seen quite a few, and still have not seen anyone come
close to duplicating what the ancient Egyptians did.
[snip]
> > > they also had a more recent episode where they
> > > re-created some Inca stone work by pounding one stone against another.
> >
> > Specifically, what work? No doubt "some Inca stone work" can be
> > duplicated -- how about the sophisticated work?
>
> They replicated fitting the stones together so that "you couldn't
> a knife between them"
How big were the stones?
August Matthusen
Rodney Small wrote:
> How big were the stones?
Where are the slag heaps? Wheres's the evidence for the
infrastructure?
Regards,
August Matthusen
dtak
In article <5el2kn$6...@bignews.shef.ac.uk>, Martin Stower
<mar...@dcs.shef.ac.uk> wrote:
> Fine - if everyone was using the word in this sense. It's obvious IMO
> that some people aren't - that they're using `machine tools' as a
> synonym for `power tools'.
Well put.
> What's in dispute is precisely the claim - as made by Chris Dunn - that
> the tools _must_ have been power tools, much like modern ones - when not
> only the tools, but also the infrastructure to support them, are entirely
> absent from the archaeological record.
I read through this article again, and see the distinction in the
"arguments" that you are talking about.
I suppose the argument -could- be made that "we are still digging and
learning, and the great storehouse of ancient Black&Decker tools might
still be out there." But I won't make it..<g>
> The Old Kingdom Egyptians certainly applied several of the basic principles
> - the elementary mechanisms - listed above: the lever; the axle (for lathes);
> the wedge; and the inclined plane. Those IMO could take them a long way.
I agree totally. My experiences and a lifetime here in Alaska (where
improvisation is often the rule of the day) lead me to much different
conclusions about what is possible.
I once visted an old mining site where 1 man and 2 horses back in the
1920's shifted the course of a rather large creek (probably a river down in
the US) with nothing but rocks. It was a massive work, rocks and boulders
stacked in long, high neat terraces etc. It was quite a sight. Done by
one man over a period of 10 years or so.
> On using oxen instead of men: teams of men could co-ordinate their work -
> and such teams could be co-ordinated - much better than could teams of
> oxen. I think that's one of the most important principles they applied.
My reason for bringing up oxen, is that often we are told of the legions of
slaves etc. that "just had to be necessary" to move things around and the
like. Further, depending on who you listen to, there either is or is not
evidence of encampments for these masses of people.
For grunt work on the ground like dragging stones up from the quarry, use
the grunts-the oxen. Save the people for the finish work where the control
is really necessary - the last yard so to speak.
Well, its very intersting, of that there is no doubt.
Its difficult to decide what one's preference is: knowing for sure, or
never quite knowing.
Thanks for the reply.
Dave
Rodney Small
August Matthusen wrote:
>
> Rodney Small wrote:
>
>
> Where are the slag heaps? Wheres's the evidence for the
> infrastructure?
>
> Regards,
> August Matthusen
Hmmm, could it be the reason you're not answering my question is that the
stones are small, like Lehner's pyramid? Now, as to your questions, I
don't know what technology was used, and so I don't even know if there
were slag heaps. But if there were, they could be buried beneath the
sand, along with the rest of the infrastructure. Again, the main point
is that whatever tools were used to build the major pyramids and other
structures at Giza, the overwhelming majority -- if not all -- haven't
been found.
Regards,
Rodney
wvk
Martin Stower wrote:
>
> dt...@alaska.net (dtak) wrote:
>
> >Perhaps those that cry foul at the word machine, need to look at the definition:
> >"a mechancial apparatus...mechanism..a device that transmits or modifies
> >force or motion...also called simple machine, any of six or more elementary
> >mechanisims, as the _lever, wheel, axle, pulley, screw, wedge, and inclined
> >plane_."
>
> that some people aren't - that they're using `machine tools' as a
> synonym for `power tools'.
>
> Yes, certain items were turned; others were cut with tube-drills; of course
> they were.
>
> the tools _must_ have been power tools, much like modern ones - when not
> only the tools, but also the infrastructure to support them, are entirely
> absent from the archaeological record.
>
> basic principles are embodied in modern as in ancient technologies - that
> invoking the magic formula `high tech' is no explanation at all - that
> only by reference to basic principles can we hope to understand how
> engineering problems - ancient _or_ modern - are solved.
>
> - the elementary mechanisms - listed above: the lever;
the axle (for lathes);
According to Webster, "My emphasis"
Axle - The bar, shaft, or the like, ON WHICH a wheel or wheels ROTATE;
an Axletree
Axletree - A bar fixed crossways with a rounded spindle at each end UPON
WHICH a wheel ROTATES.
Lathe - 1.a machine for shaping a article of wood, metal etc. by turning
it rapidly against the edge of a cutting tool.
2. A variety of potter's WHEEL (Potter's AXLE??)
I am not a mechanical engineer but it dosen't seem that a axle makes a very
good lathe if it dosen't rotate. Or does the cutting tool rotate in the
Egytpian version of the Lathe.
Or maybe the artifact is is placed on the fixed axle like a shishkebab
and rotated.
So is a lathe a wheel or use elements of a wheel? If so then can we conclude
that the Egyptians had the WHEEL??
If they the had the wheel why would they be humping heavy stones up
the pyramid on skids??
> the wedge; and the inclined plane. Those IMO could take them a long way.
>
> On using oxen instead of men: teams of men could co-ordinate their work -
> and such teams could be co-ordinated - much better than could teams of
> oxen. I think that's one of the most important principles they applied.
>
> MartinConfused
Wayne Van Kirk
Martin Stower
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>wvk wrote:
>> Martin Stower wrote:
>> > Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >As Dunn points out, many artifacts besides the "aberrant" one show
>> > >conclusively that lathes were used.
>> >
>> > Is anyone denying that lathes were used for these items?
>>
>> According to the recent Nova show the GP was built without
>> "modern surveying equipment, the wheel or even the pully"
>>
>> Should they have added "but amazingly the ancient egyptians
>> invented and used the lathe to manufacture their stone artifacts"
>
>Excellent point and another example of Egyptologists not having their
>story together. Martin seems to think the conventional wisdom says that
>lathes were used, but Nova says no. Which is it???
I'd suggest ignoring Nova, and looking instead at such standard works
as _Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries_ by A. Lucas, reprinted
recently by Histories and Mysteries of Man - although in fairness to
the Nova people, they were talking about something else entirely, and
didn't mention lathes at all.
>By the way Martin, back in October when I began this thread, you said you
>were going to check out the core that Dunn thinks may have been
>ultrasonically drilled. Specifically, you wrote:
>
>> I suggest the first thing we need to do is track down the actual core.
>> I guess the Petrie Museum would be the place to start. I'll make some
>> enquiries, when I can find the time.
>
>Any progress?
No. Such time as I've had has gone on other things - but the revival of
this thread has reminded me . . .
Martin
Marc Line
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, at 09:50:02, wvk cajoled electrons into this
Re: Ancient Egyptian mechanics
>If they the had the wheel why would they be humping heavy stones up
>the pyramid on skids??
Try riding a bicycle in the desert or in deep snow.
It's a question of mass and the surface area over which it is
distributed, coupled with the surface over which that mass is to be
conveyed, which informs one's decision as to which method of conveyance
is the most appropriate.
Regards
Marc
wvk
Well yes "Different horses for different courses" but this dosen't
exclude the wheel does it.
The surface area must have been firm and strong enought to support the 70 ton
blocks for the Kings Chamber.
But they didn't have the wheel - or did they?
>
> Regards
>
> Marc
> Still confused
WVK
Martin Stower
[. . .]
>> But the legendary Martin Stower seems to agree with Dunn! Where do you
>> come down on this issue?
>
>Nope, Dunn wants power tools Martin doesn't. I don't have a
>problem with that. I certainly hope Martin hasn't been relegated
>into the realm of the legendary; I quite enjoy corresponding with him.
I am a legend in my own lunchtime.
Martin
Marc Line
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, at 13:17:36, wvk cajoled electrons into this
My bit:
>> It's a question of mass and the surface area over which it is
>> distributed, coupled with the surface over which that mass is to be
>> conveyed, which informs one's decision as to which method of conveyance
>> is the most appropriate.
>Well yes "Different horses for different courses" but this dosen't
>exclude the wheel does it.
I was not seeking to exclude the wheel absolutely. rather I was trying
to draw attention to the fact that if one is moving heavy stones up an
inclined plane fabricated in mud-bricks, one is more likely to use a
sled or rollers than axled wheels since the mass of the stone would
otherwise be concentrated on a relatively small point of contact with
the bricks which would tend to degrade them rather more rapidly than
would be the case with the former, and this is probably the longest
sentence I've ever written without taking a sip of tea! :)
>The surface area must have been firm and strong enought to support the 70 ton
>blocks for the Kings Chamber.
I don't doubt it, but 1000 pounds spread over 1000 square inches is 1
pound per square inch. 1000 pounds spread over one square inch is 1000
pounds per square inch. Sorry to be so basic but it really is that
simple. There's a lot of difference in the effect on a mud brick
between the two examples. Try it yourself by cutting with the back of a
knife.
>But they didn't have the wheel - or did they?
Sure they had wheels of one form or another. If you cut down a tree you
have a long wheel. Whether they were used as wheels in the wheel sense
of the word though is another matter. :) I rather think that there
would be some evidence in the artwork for it.
>> Still confused
Not helping very much am I?
>WVK
Cheers
Marc
X
Marc Line
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, at 19:11:32, Martin Stower cajoled electrons into
this
Is that like "lunchbox" or is Linford Christie legendary for other
reasons? :)
Cheers
Marc
X
August Matthusen
Rodney Small wrote:
>
> August Matthusen wrote:
> >
> > Rodney Small wrote:
> >
> >
> > Where are the slag heaps? Wheres's the evidence for the
> > infrastructure?
>Hmmm, could it be the reason you're not answering my question is that
the
>stones are small, like Lehner's pyramid?
Could it be ennui with unbridled speculation that fails to recognize
itself as speculation?
Could it be because you snipped so much of my last post without any
response to questions, I decided to do the same? Why did you snip the
part about the Nova on Stonehenge without comment? It talked about
moving large stones, now all of sudden this is what you most want to
know. What difference does craftsmanship make when the question is
size?
As for the Inca stones, one was about a cubic foot, the other between
one-half
to a cubic meter. What difference does size make when the question is
craftsmanship? As a side attraction they had a researcher who
claimed the
Inca had used multiple parabolic mirrors to focus the sun to burn the
stones
into the shapes found. The Incan stone work resembled the modern
stone work
accomplished by beating the blocks with hammer stones and smoothing
with
smaller stones. The researcher with the mirrors failed to melt,
scorch,
or modify the shape of any stones. After several attempts, he managed
to
ignite a wooden popsicle stick.
>Now, as to your questions, I don't know what technology was used,
>and so I don't even know if there were slag heaps.
What about the ultrasonic drill?
How could Dunn's power machines exist without mines, slag heaps, or
infrastructure? If you manage to figure a way to get rid of slag
heaps and/or the waste from modern technology such that it
can't be found, you'll be rich.
>But if there were, they could be buried beneath the
>sand, along with the rest of the infrastructure.
I see. We've found limestone and granite quarries, houses and hovels,
temples and tombs, knives made from from bronze and meteorite iron,
jewelry and trinkets, pottery and wooden implements; but somehow
missed the iron mines, smelters, iron works, iron tools, concommitant
tools to make other tools, warehouses for tools and machinery,
the ac power generators, the buildings for the ac generators,
the power generating plant, power transmission lines, and all the
waste
and pollution from industrialization, etc. Very convenient. Yet, you
had problems with the idea that a few postulated tube drill bits were
re-used/recycled to oblivion.
>Again, the main point is that whatever tools were used to build
>the major pyramids and other structures at Giza, the overwhelming
>majority -- if not all -- haven't been found.
Nope, the main point is that this is all speculation; nothing can be
tested or falsified *either way* (what Dunn proposed or what Petrie
or Martin or I proposed) and thus doesn't qualify as science.
Paul Heinrich noted that this thread reminds him of chasing Invisible
Pink Unicorns(tm). It's beginning to remind me of watching IPUs(tm)
chase their tails.
I could just as well speculate that the cores were carved by IPUs(tm)
with their horns and the "spiral" was incised by an IPU(tm) in a
playful
mood. This idea, of course, could be assisted by claiming to
have no "Preconceived notion" of what was or wasn't available. There
is no need for complicated explanations regarding why the tools
haven't
been found (the horns as well as the IPUs(tm) are invisible). And as
was stated in a post that you thought was terrific: "Indeed, the
evidence
says they did. The proof is upon those who maintain they did not, to
show
how these results are reasonably possible otherwise."
Regards,
August Matthusen
Jiri Mruzek
Marc Line wrote:
> Quoting from an article in the December 96 issue of British Archaeology,
> page 5, the following:-
> "The Prehistoric builders of stone circles and other megalithic
> monuments may have had an easier task than has traditionally been
> thought, according to an engineer from Oxfordshire."
> Then, paraphrasing:-
> The notion that hundreds of people would need to be involved to lift the
> huge monoliths at places such as Stonehenge or the Early Neolithic
> "Portal Dolmen" tombs such as Pentre Ifan in Wales, where a heavy
> 'capstone' rests atop 3 uprights, may well be gross overestimates.
> An engineer, Cliff Osenton from Banbury, Oxon, not only claims that a
> mere handful of people could have accomplished the task, he also gave a
> demonstration in November 1996 and showed that ONE man could lift a
> rough-hewn, 5 tonne block of sandstone 2ft off the ground in 2 hours
> using only a 12ft wooden pole, with a second man stacking wedges under
> the stone. Using his system, as yet unpublished, 1 man could have
> raised the capstone (5 tonnes) of a typical portal dolmen in a few
> hours, 2 men could have raised a typical Stonehenge Lintel (10 tonnes),
> whilst 8 men would have been needed to raise the uprights of the
> Stonehenge Trilithons (40 tonnes).
> Personal comment:
> Humankind is naturally inventive. The brain, when faced with a
> necessity, invariably responds with invention. With our computers,
> lasers, satellites and all the other accoutrements of late 20th century
> living, it is, perhaps, all too easy to forget that the people who lived
> 5000+ years ago, were every bit as smart as we are, though maybe in
> different ways. It would serve us well to consider the possibility that
> when one's structural world is a thing of stones and wood, one might be
> expected to become quite adept at manipulating stones and wood. After
> all, *we're* pretty damned smart with steel and concrete, and if there's
> anyone who doesn't believe that, I might just write a book about it!! :)
You extend one isolated case into worlwide ramifications, the way you
speak! BTW, these methods you mention, would fail the grade at the Great
Pyramid, on account of being too time intensive. Therefore, you have no
right to speechify!
> (Still puzzled by those diorite flasks though!)
> Regards
> Marc Line - Director of Archaeology (B.H.A.S.)
There is a lot more in Antiquity to be puzzled by. I am shocked at your
severely restricted scope.
Jiri
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
dtak
In article <CxvaUBAJ...@bosagate.demon.co.uk>, Marc Line
<ma...@bosagate.demon.spamscamscram.co.uk> wrote:
> Try riding a bicycle......in deep snow.
Boyyyy, you're not kidding!!
Dave
Yes, really in Alaska...
dtak
> the axle (for lathes);
> According to Webster, "My emphasis"
>
> Axle - The bar, shaft, or the like, ON WHICH a wheel or wheels ROTATE;
> an Axletree
>
> Axletree - A bar fixed crossways with a rounded spindle at each end UPON
> WHICH a wheel ROTATES.
>
> Lathe - 1.a machine for shaping a article of wood, metal etc. by turning
> it rapidly against the edge of a cutting tool.
> 2. A variety of potter's WHEEL (Potter's AXLE??)
>
> I am not a mechanical engineer but it dosen't seem that a axle makes a very
> good lathe if it dosen't rotate. Or does the cutting tool rotate in the
> Egytpian version of the Lathe.
> Or maybe the artifact is is placed on the fixed axle like a shishkebab
> and rotated.
> So is a lathe a wheel or use elements of a wheel? If so then can we conclude
> that the Egyptians had the WHEEL??
> If they the had the wheel why would they be humping heavy stones up
> the pyramid on skids??
Wayne, keep in mind that the ability to turn something on its axis, doesn't
require knowledge of "the wheel" as we know it. Its the motion that is the
key. ROLLING something along a bed of _round_ logs is using the
principles that makes the wheel its self so useful: rotation, rolling,
movement around an axis.
The wheel is simply one method of employing that rotational movement.
You could ask the qustion: which came first, rolling or the wheel? Well,
rolling of course.
Think of the simple loom, the way levers and bars rotate about an axis.
Whoever made he first wheel, did so as an _improvement_ upon some other
form of rotating device. This person made the great leap of "hey, lets put
this piece of wood right in the middle" as opposed to another arrangement.
The wheel was surely created in such a fashion, not first as a mathematical
construct of some kind.
The simple use of a lever incorporates the fundimental principle: rotation
about an axis.
The use or ores to propel a boat (a type of lever) is similar.
The use of a rope pulled over an a-frame to provide leverage, is similar.
The hoisting of a sale uses it..and so on
Also, as to your question re: skids vs wheels. Where I live we use skids
and sleds extensively. Why? They distribute the weight better.
Dave
Jiri Mruzek
wvk wrote:
> Marc Line wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, at 09:50:02, wvk cajoled electrons into this
> > Re: Ancient Egyptian mechanics
> > >If they the had the wheel why would they be humping heavy stones up
> > >the pyramid on skids??
> > Try riding a bicycle in the desert or in deep snow.
Sure, skids distribute weight better than wheels. But, you can't
take the 70-ton blocks up the GP's slope on sleds, because you can't
turn corners of a spiral ramp with them (dams if you do, and damn if
you don't.
> > It's a question of mass and the surface area over which it is
> > distributed, coupled with the surface over which that mass is to be
> > conveyed, which informs one's decision as to which method of conveyance
> > is the most appropriate.
> But they didn't have the wheel - or did they?
What? ..Oarse, they did. Why, how could anyone be serious in that
people,
who must have thought a whole lot in terms of axes, and spinning lathes,
as according to our own esteamed conservatives(!), the Earth's axis,
etc.,
could not visualise a possible advantage in making a model of a
commonplace,
and exceedingly simple element of their complex science - the stupid
wheel?
Like, wow, what !#!&% could possibly admit to such peer-smashed fallacy?
Atlantean Salute,
Jiri
*************************
Why don't you say it in plain Gaellic?
Marc Line
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, at 02:57:14, Jiri Mruzek cajoled electrons into
this
>Marc Line wrote:
snipped the building method, leaving this lonely paragraph, cast adrift,
searching desperately for internal context
I erected:
>> Humankind is naturally inventive. The brain, when faced with a
>> necessity, invariably responds with invention. With our computers,
>> lasers, satellites and all the other accoutrements of late 20th century
>> living, it is, perhaps, all too easy to forget that the people who lived
>> 5000+ years ago, were every bit as smart as we are, though maybe in
>> different ways. It would serve us well to consider the possibility that
>> when one's structural world is a thing of stones and wood, one might be
>> expected to become quite adept at manipulating stones and wood. After
>> all, *we're* pretty damned smart with steel and concrete, and if there's
>> anyone who doesn't believe that, I might just write a book about it!! :)
Jiri ejaculated:
>You extend one isolated case into worlwide ramifications, the way you
>speak! BTW, these methods you mention, would fail the grade at the Great
>Pyramid, on account of being too time intensive. Therefore, you have no
>right to speechify!
Mea Maxima Culpa! Yes, you caught me with my skirt raised,
speechifying, and are whipping me severely. More, more, harder,
harder!!!
Are you suggesting that the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic inhabitants
of this Tin Island, this Eden, this Emerald set in Lapis Lazuli, this
England, were more advanced than people living elsewhere at the time?
Could it be that humanity, being an adaptive enough organism to survive
and to eke out a living almost everywhere on Earth; from the scorching
heat of the Sahara to the frozen wilderness of Alaska; might be cut a
little slack here? Do you not think it possible that ingenuity reared
its head in ancient Egypt?
Jiri, unless and until you can demonstrate to the world that the precept
I proposed above is fallacious, I am as likely to hail you as arbiter of
my prerogative as you are to hail me as arbiter of yours.
>> (Still puzzled by those diorite flasks though!)
>There is a lot more in Antiquity to be puzzled by. I am shocked at your
>severely restricted scope.
Please accept my profound apologies. I had not intended to shock you.
Alas, my intellect is not so well developed as that of others in this
place. It is, therefore, with the utmost contrition that I find myself
able to consider only ONE thing puzzling at a time. Think yourself
blessed that you can find many more things puzzling than I.
As for my scope, I am unsure to which scope you refer.
If you mean my oscilloscope, I too lament its restrictions. A bandwidth
of 20 MHz used to be quite adequate for TTL and RF work. However, in
these days of emitter-coupled logic shunting transitions in nanoseconds
with near-square hysteresis, it is out of its depth, confining itself
primarily to assisting me with the design of lower speed computers based
around such wondrous beasts as the 80C31, the MSM50734 SP/FP and, of
course, the old faithful 80C386.
If you mean my telescope, whilst by modern standards it *is* somewhat
restricted, it serves well enough to view the closer planets and, I
trust, will provide me with an adequate means of witnessing the agent of
end of the world next month.
If you mean my periscope, I'll have you know that it has served me well
in the past and continues to do so. I have not, as yet, been depth-
charged OR bombed by either German *or* Japanese war-machines.
If you mean my microscope, I find a magnification of 400 adequate for
all but the most demanding observations. Cost, of course, is a factor
which prevents me from opting for the scanning electron version, even
though I might be precluded from witnessing the bacteria bridge club
playing a rubber.
If you mean my endoscope, then I regret that I am unable to comment
publicly. Some things are just TOO personal!! :)
Cheers :)
Marc
XxX
"this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls,
because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external,
written characters and not remember of themselves...your disciples (will be
given) not truth but the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many
things, and will have learned nothing." - Plato, re: Amun to Tehuti, on writing.
(Perform robotomy on email address.)
wvk
dtak wrote:
>
> In article <331164...@phoenix.net>, wvk <w...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>
> > the axle (for lathes);
> > According to Webster, "My emphasis"
> >
> > Axle - The bar, shaft, or the like, ON WHICH a wheel or wheels ROTATE;
> > an Axletree
> >
> > Axletree - A bar fixed crossways with a rounded spindle at each end UPON
> > WHICH a wheel ROTATES.
> >
> > Lathe - 1.a machine for shaping a article of wood, metal etc. by turning
> > it rapidly against the edge of a cutting tool.
> > 2. A variety of potter's WHEEL (Potter's AXLE??)
> >
> > I am not a mechanical engineer but it dosen't seem that a axle makes a very
> > good lathe if it dosen't rotate. Or does the cutting tool rotate in the
> > Egytpian version of the Lathe.
> > Or maybe the artifact is is placed on the fixed axle like a shishkebab
> > and rotated.
> > So is a lathe a wheel or use elements of a wheel? If so then can we conclude
> > that the Egyptians had the WHEEL??
> > the pyramid on skids??
>
> require knowledge of "the wheel" as we know it. Its the motion that is the
> key. ROLLING something along a bed of _round_ logs is using the
> principles that makes the wheel its self so useful: rotation, rolling,
> movement around an axis.
Once again this is not my field (I posted a Lathe=axle or wheel? in the
mechanical engineering newsgroup a day ago but no response so far)
but is not a log really an axle when used in the above application?
It seems to me that CONTROL over the axis is what a wheel is about.
Like a lathe.
Anyway the question is Did the 4th Dynasty have a wheel? History
books, Nova, archaeologists say no. The dictionary says a lathe
is a form of a potters wheel.
A little wild speculation:
A lathe can produce many useful items besides art.
How about wide stone wheels or rollers that revolve around an axletree
(see above for definetion) this concept is the essence of the lathe - no?
Pully wheels - they had rope found a bunch of it with the boat
Windless - They could have picked up on this principle from the
lathe ie mechanical advantage
Saws - If they had tube drills why not circular saws. Cutting out
2,500,000 blocks from the bedrock with a copper pick ax a la
Nova?????? - Really
Block & Tackle Rope and stone wheels!
Perhaps when they finished the project the "tools" stone wheels,
rollers etc were further machined and then incorporated into their other
structures ie: columns.
> The wheel is simply one method of employing that rotational movement.
>
> You could ask the qustion: which came first, rolling or the wheel? Well,
> rolling of course.
> Think of the simple loom, the way levers and bars rotate about an axis.
> Whoever made he first wheel, did so as an _improvement_ upon some other
> form of rotating device. This person made the great leap of "hey, lets put
> this piece of wood right in the middle" as opposed to another arrangement.
> The wheel was surely created in such a fashion, not first as a mathematical
> construct of some kind.
>
> The simple use of a lever incorporates the fundimental principle: rotation
> about an axis.
> The use or ores to propel a boat (a type of lever) is similar.
> The use of a rope pulled over an a-frame to provide leverage, is similar.
> The hoisting of a sale uses it..and so on
>
> Also, as to your question re: skids vs wheels. Where I live we use skids
> and sleds extensively. Why? They distribute the weight better.
There are many applications today where moving heavy things with wheels is
not practical, like for example over water, but that dosen't rule out
the wheel.
>
> Dave
Martin, what do you think?
Confused in Houston
Wayne Van Kirk
Serge Rosmorduc
About the wheel in Egypt, it should be noted that we have toys and
representations of wheels way before the chariot appears. I think
there is a representation of a siege ladder equiped with wheels from
the first intermediate period, and a number of wheeled "toys".
Perhaps the Egyptian did not develop the wheel because the
Nile was a really efficient communication way.
regards,
--
Serge Rosmorduc,
ros...@lsv.ens-cachan.fr
LSV
ENS de Cachan
61, avenue du Pr\'esident Wilson
94235 Cachan Cedex
tel (16 1) 47 40 24 93
fax (16 1) 47 40 24 64
http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html
(and moving to :
http://iut.univ-paris8.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html
)
dtak
> Once again this is not my field (I posted a Lathe=axle or wheel? in the
> mechanical engineering newsgroup a day ago but no response so far)
> but is not a log really an axle when used in the above application?
> It seems to me that CONTROL over the axis is what a wheel is about.
> Like a lathe.
> Anyway the question is Did the 4th Dynasty have a wheel? History
> books, Nova, archaeologists say no. The dictionary says a lathe
> is a form of a potters wheel.
I can't answer the question about the wheel. Doesn't show up in the
artwork, paintings, artifacts?. But then in a region of scarce resources I
wouldn't think they would have let wheels just lay around, too useful.
But I do find it odd that there is so much _round_ pottery and
vases/vessels around.
This stuff had to be shaped somehow.
I wonder if anyone has tried to duplicate the pottery of the era without a
potter's wheel?
> Confused in Houston
> Wayne Van Kirk
Re confused: what are you, a member of the Oilers?? <g>
So Wayne, do you think we'll ever know?
Dave
Jiri Mruzek
Marc Line wrote:
>>Marc Line wrote:
> I erected:
> Jiri ejaculated:
You are resorting to cheap comedy to wriggle out of the fact that you
were indeed caught in the act of unscrupoulous propaganda. Choosing
the very cheapest tactics - sexual innuendos - only shows your
frustration.
> Are you suggesting that the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic
> inhabitants
> of this Tin Island, this Eden, this Emerald set in Lapis Lazuli,
> this
> England, were more advanced than people living elsewhere at the
> time?
> Could it be that humanity, being an adaptive enough organism to
> survive
> and to eke out a living almost everywhere on Earth; from the
> scorching
> heat of the Sahara to the frozen wilderness of Alaska; might be cut
> a
> little slack here? Do you not think it possible that ingenuity
> reared its head in ancient Egypt?
<more of the same oratory spared the reader>
Good grief , more disjointed speeches. What I meant was that most
skeptics cannot maintain an overall view on these ancient matters.
They jump from detail to detail and generalize and orate.
The meat of discussion was that you mentioned, how some savant has
devised yet another primitive method, by which it is possible to raise
moderately heavy stones at a painfully slow pace. From there you spoke,
as if this experiment had explained all the ancient mysteries of
megalithic construction.
While I agree that Stonehenge could have been theoretically constructed
by manual labor (Lo-Tech), your scholar has done nothing to explain,
how the Great Pyramid, etc., may have been constructed That's all.
>>> (Still puzzled by those diorite flasks though!)
>>There is a lot more in Antiquity to be puzzled by. I am shocked at
>> your severely restricted scope.
> Please accept my profound apologies. I had not intended to shock
> you. Alas, my intellect is not so well developed ...
(The rest of the pitiful evasive sophistry mercifully deleted.)
How about the English glassified forts? One thing at a time, right?
Let's hear your rational explanation..
And how about.., oops, forgot, who I'm talking to..
Atlantean Salute,
Jiri
**************
Predynastic Diorite flasks are not a puzzle - they are proof of power
tools
.
Jiri Mruzek
Jiri Mruzek
Marc Line wrote:
>>Marc Line wrote:
> I erected:
> Jiri ejaculated:
.
.
.
.
Martin Stower
wvk <w...@phoenix.net> wrote:
[. . .]
>Martin, what do you think?
>
>Confused in Houston
>Wayne Van Kirk
It's always a good idea to go to sources. Here are some cogent
remarks from I. E. S. Edwards' _The Pyramids of Egypt_:
. . . some of the carrying possibilities of the wheel had been
realised at least as early as the Vth Dynasty [footnote: `A relief
in the Vth Dynasty tomb of Kaemheset at Sakkara shows a scaling-
ladder mounted on wheels.'], scenes in tombs of the XVIIIth Dynasty
demonstrate that, even after a lapse of a thousand years, statues
and heavy blocks of stone were not moved by wheeled transport.
Instead, sledges were employed . . . An illustration of the actual
process of transport was included by Jehutihotep, a nobleman of the
XIIth Dynasty, in his tomb at El-Bersheh. In this scene an alabaster
statue of Jehutihotep, which probably weighed about 60 tons, is mounted
on a sledge pulled by 172 men. Water or some other liquid is poured
on the ground to lessen the friction and thus facilitate haulage.
Two important points here:
(1) The use of the wheel for _some_ tasks is pushed right back to the
Old Kingdom.
(2) The idea that the ancient Egyptians used sledges for this type of
transport isn't an arbitrary one: it's based on what they depicted.
Regarding sledges, a parallel 5th Dynasty example is provided by the
causeway of Unas, whose reliefs depict the transport of granite columns
from Aswan on the Nile: the columns sit _on sledges_ on the deck of the
boat. A later example of the same thing, on a larger scale, is the
well-known depiction of the transport of the famous obelisks of
Hatshepsut; it's a bit harder to see, but again, the obelisks - and
these are big obelisks - sit on sledges.
I've some more thoughts on this, which I'll return to later . . .
Martin
Marc Line
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, at 03:21:25, Jiri Mruzek cajoled electrons into
this
snipped my cheap comedy
>You are resorting to cheap comedy to wriggle out of the fact that you
>were indeed caught in the act of unscrupoulous propaganda. Choosing
>the very cheapest tactics - sexual innuendos - only shows your
>frustration.
My Dear Jiri
Thank you for your lovely letter which arrived today. I had not long
been a nematode when I discovered that a diet consisting of the staple
of cheap comedy did not provide the energy levels necessary to combat
such incisive and informed challenges to my use of language. Whilst
being high in poly-unsaturates and low in saturates, the carbohydrate
content does not allow for sufficiently energetic wriggling to escape
the charge that I am nothing more that the re-incarnation of Joseph
Goebbels, disinvested of moderating Greek influence. That said, I
should, however, dispute your assertion that sexual innuendo is "the
very cheapest tactic." I don't know what you pay where you live but
here, it does not come cheaply at all. The Innuendo is heading for
extinction and not all of the few remaining are thus inclined. It is a
seller's market, then, and the price is artificially high. As a
consequence, I usually choose Sexual Iguanas, though I made an exception
as a mark of esteem.
As for frustration, that requires both a purpose and an agency which
acts to prevent that purpose being accomplished. The person who is
being prevented from accomplishing that purpose can then be said to be
frustrated. I have no purpose. I am purposeless. I exhibit
purposelessness. In order to be frustrated, I should have to be
purposelessnessless. Furthermore, if you think that you are qualified
to serve in the capacity of the aforementioned agency, I fear I am also
the bringer of bad tidings.
> <more of the same oratory spared the reader>
Thank you Jiri. So kind! Kind enough in fact to spare the reader not
once, not twice, but thrice!! Tell me, was the triplication of this
posting accidental, Trismegistus, or is it true that Hermetica will out?
Enough sostenuto, a little pizzicato.
>Good grief , more disjointed speeches.
Grief is good in that it is a mechanism which enables us to experience
the depth of love, albeit usually through loss. I am pleased to note
that you detected the total absence of delta-9 THC.
>What I meant was that most
>skeptics cannot maintain an overall view on these ancient matters.
Do you think that I am a disciple of Pyrrho of Elis? What is a skeptic
and why do you think I am one? Is a skeptic defined as, "anyone who
does not choose to see the world as I do?" And how would you know that
in any case?
>They jump from detail to detail and generalize and orate.
If you consider that to be such a cardinal sin, why is it that you
choose, on occasion, to serve as an exemplar of the genre? Would that
make you a skeptic?
>The meat of discussion was that you mentioned, how some savant has
>devised yet another primitive method, by which it is possible to raise
>moderately heavy stones at a painfully slow pace. From there you spoke,
>as if this experiment had explained all the ancient mysteries of
>megalithic construction.
Actually I wrote about something I'd read, in a follow-up to a Paul
Heinrich post relating to a NOVA programme about the building of
Stonehenge. I was relating the results of recent work carried out by a
humble engineer which has shown that the farce that was the NOVA
programme need not necessarily have been an accurate reflection of
Neolithic reality. My comments, at that point, were confined to the
consideration of Stonhenge and Portal Dolmen tombs.
I then made the grievous error of stating the obvious as an
extrapolation from the evidence of that exercise. I repeat it below,
line by line, so that you might clarify which part of it you find so
abhorrent.
"Humankind is naturally inventive."
Do you not agree?
"The brain, when faced with a
necessity, invariably responds with invention."
Is this erroneous?
"With our computers,
lasers, satellites and all the other accoutrements of late 20th century
living, it is, perhaps, all too easy to forget that the people who lived
5000+ years ago, were every bit as smart as we are, though maybe in
different ways."
Jiri, could YOU survive in the Neolithic? Do you think that the people
in those times were stupid? How do you disagree with the above?
"It would serve us well to consider the possibility that
when one's structural world is a thing of stones and wood, one might be
expected to become quite adept at manipulating stones and wood."
Do you disagree with the premise or the notion that considering it would
be beneficial to researchers?
"After
all, *we're* pretty damned smart with steel and concrete, and if there's
anyone who doesn't believe that, I might just write a book about it!!
:)"
Do you think that we're *not* adept with those materials?
Please illuminate me as to how and where you think I am speaking, "as if
this experiment had explained all the ancient mysteries of megalithic
construction."
Pretty please? :)
>While I agree that Stonehenge could have been theoretically constructed
>by manual labor (Lo-Tech), your scholar has done nothing to explain,
>how the Great Pyramid, etc., may have been constructed That's all.
I didn't mention the Pyramids did I? Jiri, if you're going to waste
your time trying to impress me with your capacity to be obnoxious, at
least extend me the common courtesy of basing your rhetoric on what I
write rather than the apparently delusional and hypothetical
extrapolations therefrom which are dictated by your own agenda.
Reading your above paragraph again, I am compelled to conclude that you
agree with what I said and disagree with what I didn't say! Thank you
for your support! :))
>(The rest of the pitiful evasive sophistry mercifully deleted.)
You say the sweetest things!! Am I to gather, from the invective, that
I touched on a nerve or two? :))
Do you know how much I have to pay my editor? Here you are doing it for
free!!! ;))
Still, at least you find my argumentation plausible. I suppose I should
be grateful for that.
>How about the English glassified forts?
Never tasted one.
>One thing at a time, right?
No, usually more like a dozen. It's a curse of genius!!
>Let's hear your rational explanation..
Okay, you're chasing a shadow.
>And how about.., oops, forgot, who I'm talking to..
But now you've remembered eh? You would perhaps know me as the author
of the 14 Commandments listed below, formulated on the basis of the
original 21 Immutable Laws of Sardegon upon departure from that place,
in advance of its descent into the realms of Satanaku.
>Atlantean Salute,
Are you sure? :) The group which found it necessary to use that were
the "scientists", the engineers of decline.
>Jiri
>**************
>Predynastic Diorite flasks are not a puzzle - they are proof of power
>tools
Feel free to prove your "proof" by making one for me, with power tools,
and I shall yield to your "leap of blind faith" assertion.
1. Abstain from taking the life of thy fellow, or of anything which
creepeth upon the face of the Earth, or of that which swimmeth in the
depths of the ocean.
2. Seek not to obtain that which doth not belong to thee, for he who
doth cast the eye of envy upon his neighbour, with desire to obtain that
which his neighbour hath without his consent, hath committed the sin of
covetousness.
3. Seek not to supplant thy fellow with desire to take his place, for
he who doeth this thing is guilty of deceit.
4. Give honour unto thy earthly father and mother, that they have been
privileged to be called unto parenthood, for unless the command were of
God, the Cosmic Force, they could hot become the vessels of earthly
birth.
5. Seek not to take a husband or a wife if the divine spark of love is
not brightly burning, for I say unto you that whoso doeth this thing is
guilty of seeking the lusts of the mortal body of shame, and hath walked
in the ways of Satanaku.
6. Thou shalt not at any time have mortal union with thy brother or thy
sister for the sole purpose of satisfying the lusts of the mortal body
of shame, for whoso doeth this thing is guilty of practising the
Initiations of Satanaku.
7. Never shall any among you seek mortal union with those that are from
out the animal kingdom, for I say unto you that this is one of the
greatest offences that mortal man or woman can commit before the face of
the Cosmic Spirit of God.
8. Speak openly unto thy brother and thy sister that thy words may be
as the sacred oaths in the eyes of all men.
9. Refrain from the devastating practices of Black Magic, for by these
things did those of Sarkon and Sardegon perish.
10. Confess thy faults to no man, but seek the temple of thine own
heart, which doth dwell within each one of you. Speak with thy God, face
to face, for He alone can pardon your offences by giving you a happy and
clear conscience with which to appear before men.
11. Help one another as ye yourselves are helped by the Universal
Creator.
12. Abstain from the practice of unveiling the faults of others before
the multitudes, for by so doing are ye degrading them before themselves
and before men. He who is faultless let him proclaim it, and his soul
will hear him, and recognising the truth which it hath heard, will
reward him greatly. But if the lie hath been spoken, then shall the
sower gather in the harvest accordingly.
13. Abstain from warring one with another, for by so doing are ye
leaning unto the ways of Satanaku.
14. Honour all men as ye would have them honour you.
What do you think of the spears/javelins which have recently been
discovered in Germany and are dated to 400,000 BC? These were used to
kill horses and other large mammals, presumably for food. In case you
are not aware of them, the 6ft spears, whittled from spruce trunks,
reveal that hominids of 400,000 BC had a working knowledge of
aerodynamics. Each of the spears is weighted with the centre of gravity
one third of the way from the point, exactly as are modern javelins.
Robin Dennell, an archaeologist at the University of Sheffield said,
"Wooden finds like these would be sensational if only 3000 years old.
Finds a hundred times older are almost unimaginable."
The finder, German scientist Hartmut Thieme, reporting in Nature, said
that his discovery would force scientists to revise their opinions about
early man.
Christopher Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, one of the
world's leading authorities on stone-age man, said, "Quite a lot of time
and energy has been invested in making them. These men planned ahead.
We knew they used stone technology. Now we know they also were capable
with wood."
Cheers :)))
Marc
XxX
Unknown
In article <331571...@lynx.bc.ca>, Jiri says...
>Predynastic Diorite flasks are not a puzzle - they are proof of power
>tools
Excuse me but how are these proof of power tools?
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
Martin Stower
Jiri Mruzek <jirim...@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
[. . .]
>How about the English glassified forts? One thing at a time, right?
English? They're nae English!
>Let's hear your rational explanation..
They weren't forts, they were whisky distilleries. They were vitrified
when the whisky caught fire, generating enormous heat . . .
>Predynastic Diorite flasks are not a puzzle - they are proof of power
>tools
Oh so. Petrie noted that the predynastic stuff in hard stones _wasn't_
turned - I'll dig up the reference, if you like.
The Rev. Martin Sarsen X. Hancock van der Rohl, PhD (Dionne Warwick)
wvk
dtak wrote:
>
> In article <3313F9...@phoenix.net>, wvk <w...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>
> > Once again this is not my field (I posted a Lathe=axle or wheel? in the
> > mechanical engineering newsgroup a day ago but no response so far)
> > but is not a log really an axle when used in the above application?
> > It seems to me that CONTROL over the axis is what a wheel is about.
> > Like a lathe.
> > Anyway the question is Did the 4th Dynasty have a wheel? History
> > books, Nova, archaeologists say no. The dictionary says a lathe
> > is a form of a potters wheel.
>
> I can't answer the question about the wheel. Doesn't show up in the
> artwork, paintings, artifacts?.
Its my understanding that there is no artwork or paintings in the Giza
plaza. Artifacts? maybe Cheops (or whomever) decided that the GP
would remain the GP not the FGP (Formally Great Pyramid), loaded
up the tools on a reed barge and dumped then into the sea - Possible?
But then in a region of scarce resources I
> wouldn't think they would have let wheels just lay around, too useful.
Maybe they are still there, modified and incorporated into the architecture
> But I do find it odd that there is so much _round_ pottery and
> vases/vessels around.
> This stuff had to be shaped somehow.
>
> I wonder if anyone has tried to duplicate the pottery of the era without a
> potter's wheel?
Didn't they have a lathe? Check Petrie, Dunn and Martin
> > Confused in Houston
> > Wayne Van Kirk
>
> Re confused: what are you, a member of the Oilers??
Aren't they a football team?
> So Wayne, do you think we'll ever know?
Not if those in charge of the dispensing the "Official Party Line"
have their minds made up and treat it all as a turf battle rather than
scientific inquiry (which is what they are being paid for-isn't it?).
Petries observations have been out for over 100 years, Dunns
since 1984. Certainly provocative stuff, which should
spark additional inquiry by archaeologists rather than ridicule.
Will archaeologists follow up - Yes or No Care to vote on this one?
As long as we are asked to abandon common sense, the subject
will attract both reasonable alternative thoeries and the
unreasonable. Lumping them togeather has has made it easy
to dismiss all of it regardless of merit.
Just reread Jim Houstons comments on the drilling.
> Dave
Gotta get back to work
Wayne Van Kirk
Jiri Mruzek
<HTML><BODY>
jmca...@gtn.net wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>In article <331571...@lynx.bc.ca>, Jiri
says...
<BR>
<BR><I>>Predynastic Diorite flasks are not a puzzle - they are proof of
power</I>
<BR><I>>tools</I>
<BR>
<BR>Excuse me but how are these proof of power tools?
<BR>
<BR>Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Foremostly, the drilling bit sank into the discussed core at
<BR>the rate of 1:60. Compare that to the rate of power tools today
<BR>in drilling the same material. I remember reading here that
<BR>the modern drills descend at a much milder slope.
<BR>The modern drills are power tools. Since they don't work granite
<BR>as efficiently, as the ancient tools - they are inferior. That makes
<BR>the ancient tools more advanced. They had to be power tools.
<BR>I know that one could develop a lot of pressure using truly
<BR>large crude tools. But then any accuracy would be lost.
<BR>In contrast, we admire the finesse of workmanship of the paperthin
<BR>granite works left us even from the predynastic period.
<BR>I tell you what. It is very nice that archaeological digs turn up
<BR>evidence of Egypt's past, which indicates a Lo-Tech society.
<BR>But this only the base of a pyramid ( Egypt itself).
<BR>Things were different at the top of the pyramidion. There was
<BR>secret knowledge, held by temples. There were achievements
<BR>like the Great Pyramid, thousand-ton obelisks posted far away
<BR>from their quarries, etc.
<BR>All those are contradictory to Lo-Tech, indicative of hi-Tech,
<BR>and will cease to be so only if someone comes along and
<BR>accomplishes the same by Lo-Tech. I have little doubt, it will
<BR>never ever happen. The bragging rights remain in the camp of
<BR>believers in ancient "Lost Science".
<BR>Regards,
<BR>Jiri
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
Unknown
In article <331727...@lynx.bc.ca>, Jiri says...
jmca...@gtn.net wrote:
>In article <331571...@lynx.bc.ca>, Jiri
>says...
>Predynastic Diorite flasks are not a puzzle - they are proof of
>power tools
>Excuse me but how are these proof of power tools?
>Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
>Foremostly, the drilling bit sank into the discussed core at
>the rate of 1:60.
How was this determined?
> Compare that to the rate of power tools today
>in drilling the same material. I remember reading here that
>the modern drills descend at a much milder slope
>The modern drills are power tools. Since they don't work granite>
>as efficiently, as the ancient tools - they are inferior. That makes
>the ancient tools more advanced.
What evidence do you have that rotary tools were used. I am mainly
looking for studies that show surface texture at the microscopic
level using the SEM and latex casts of the surface of the worked
rock or minerals.
> They had to be power tools.
Really... Only if it took a few days to make it.
>I know that one could develop a lot of pressure using truly
>large crude tools. But then any accuracy would be lost.
Pressure is not the importiant consideration in lapidary skills.
It is the hardness of the grinding material.
>In contrast, we admire the finesse of workmanship of the paperthin
>granite works left us even from the predynastic period.
Paper thin granite works... What are these? Making thinslices of
granite can be easily done (very time consuming) using simple lapidary
techniques. In fact a turntable lap is not nessesary to do it. Just a
flat surface, a holder for the granite, water and a grinding/sanding
medium with a hardness preferably greater than 7 (quartz, garnet,
corundum etc.)of coarse to fine grain sizes and a lot of skill.
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
>I tell you what. It is very nice that archaeological digs turn up
>evidence of Egypt's past, which indicates a Lo-Tech society.
>But this only the base of a pyramid ( Egypt itself).
>Things were different at the top of the pyramidion. There was
>secret knowledge, held by temples. There were achievements
>like the Great Pyramid, thousand-ton obelisks posted far away
>from their quarries, etc.
>All those are contradictory to Lo-Tech, indicative of hi-Tech,
>and will cease to be so only if someone comes along and
>accomplishes the same by Lo-Tech. I have little doubt, it will
>never ever happen. The bragging rights remain in the camp of
>believers in ancient Lost Science
>Regards,
>Jiri
Garry Bryan
Jiri Mruzek (jirim...@lynx.bc.ca) wrote:
: wvk wrote:
:
: > Marc Line wrote:
: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, at 09:50:02, wvk cajoled electrons into this
: > > Re: Ancient Egyptian mechanics
: > > >If they the had the wheel why would they be humping heavy stones up
: > > >the pyramid on skids??
: > > Try riding a bicycle in the desert or in deep snow.
: Sure, skids distribute weight better than wheels. But, you can't
: take the 70-ton blocks up the GP's slope on sleds, because you can't
: turn corners of a spiral ramp with them (dams if you do, and damn if
: you don't.
: > > It's a question of mass and the surface area over which it is
: > > distributed, coupled with the surface over which that mass is to be
: > > conveyed, which informs one's decision as to which method of conveyance
: > > is the most appropriate.
:
: > But they didn't have the wheel - or did they?
: What? ..Oarse, they did. Why, how could anyone be serious in that
: people,
: who must have thought a whole lot in terms of axes, and spinning lathes,
: as according to our own esteamed conservatives(!), the Earth's axis,
: etc.,
: could not visualise a possible advantage in making a model of a
: commonplace,
: and exceedingly simple element of their complex science - the stupid
: wheel?
: Like, wow, what !#!&% could possibly admit to such peer-smashed fallacy?
There was evidence that the Egyptians had made use of something called a cradle.
These were semi circles of wood with deep V's cut into them. When they were
strapped onto the stone blocks, one on opposite corners, they formed a pair of
wheels with the stone block acting like an axle. A simple matter to roll the
confirguration and to even haul it up steep steps or ramps by wrapping several
turns of rope around it. One end would be anchored at the top, the rope run
down to the block, turned a couple of times around the "axle", and then run back
to the top and hauled in. Oh, for a graphics package, apicture is worth a
thousand words. . .
Garry (%^{>
Jiri Mruzek
<HTML><BODY>
<BR>: > > Re: Ancient Egyptian mechanics
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>Jiri Mruzek (jirim...@lynx.bc.ca) wrote:
<BR>: wvk wrote:
<BR>: > Marc Line wrote:
<BR>
<BR>: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, at 09:50:02, wvk cajoled electrons into
this
<BR>
<BR>: > But they didn't have the wheel - or did they?
<BR>
<BR>: What? ..Oarse, they did. Why, how could anyone be serious in that
<BR>: people, : who must have thought a whole lot in terms of axes, and spinning
<BR>: lathes as according to our own esteamed conservatives(!), the Earth's
axis,
<BR>: etc., could not visualise a possible advantage in making
a model of a
<BR>: commonplace,
<BR>: and exceedingly simple element of their complex science - the stupid
<BR>: wheel?
<BR>: Like, wow, what !#!&% could possibly admit to such peer-smashed fallacy?
<BR>
<BR>There was evidence that the Egyptians had made use of something called
a cradle.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, a couple of such cradles were found.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>These were semi circles of wood with deep V's cut
into them. When they were
<BR>strapped onto the stone blocks, one on opposite corners, they formed a
pair of
<BR>wheels with the stone block acting like an axle.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
These cradles were found without stone axle inside, and without
instructions
<BR>on how they were used. The rest is pure speculation.
<BR>Kevin D. Quitt and I had a nice discussion on this subject. You can check
it
<BR>on Deja News
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>A simple matter to roll the
<BR>confirguration and to even haul it up steep steps or ramps by wrapping
several
<BR>turns of rope around it. One end would be anchored at the top, the rope
run
<BR>down to the block, turned a couple of times around the "axle",
and then run back
<BR>to the top and hauled in. Oh, for a graphics package, apicture is worth
a
<BR>thousand words. . .
<BR>Garry (%^{>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Kevin's theeory had rolled along nicely until I pointed out that as envisioned,
<BR>i.e., applying the pulling force to the axle directly, rather than the
outside of
<BR>the wheel, produces a mechanical disadvantage!
<BR>Subsequently, this nicely rounded theory had rolled over, and seemed dead.
<BR>I am afraid, you are waking up a Zombie.
dtak
> Maybe they are still there, modified and incorporated into the architecture
Behind this mysterious door? Perhaps there is a big machine in there
keeping the Earth rotating..powered by a mouse trying to get at a bottle of
beer.. <g>
> Didn't they have a lathe? Check Petrie, Dunn and Martin
Pretty fancy lathe to turn the insides...perhaps your right..
> > Re confused: what are you, a member of the Oilers??
>
> Aren't they a football team?
Not last year I don't think..
> > So Wayne, do you think we'll ever know?
> As long as we are asked to abandon common sense, the subject
> will attract both reasonable alternative thoeries and the
> unreasonable. Lumping them togeather has has made it easy
> to dismiss all of it regardless of merit.
Sort of like _legal_ fund raising being tossed in with _illegial_ fund
raising and treasonous acts.
I see.. <g>
Dave
David Gressett
ga...@sr.hp.com (Garry Bryan) wrote:
... various quotes snipped ...
>There was evidence that the Egyptians had made use of something called a cradle.
>These were semi circles of wood with deep V's cut into them. When they were
>strapped onto the stone blocks, one on opposite corners, they formed a pair of
>wheels with the stone block acting like an axle. A simple matter to roll the
>confirguration and to even haul it up steep steps or ramps by wrapping several
>turns of rope around it. One end would be anchored at the top, the rope run
>down to the block, turned a couple of times around the "axle", and then run back
>to the top and hauled in. Oh, for a graphics package, apicture is worth a
>thousand words. . .
>Garry (%^{>
The ideal cradle would run the entire width of the block, so that with
cradles attached it would become a cylinder with raised edges at the
ends, like the spool that sewing thread comes on.
The full-width cradle would allow for several ropes to be used
simultaneously. The ropes need not be turned completely around the
axle; it needs only enough surface contact to prevent slippage, and
this could be done with a rough surface on the cradle. The rope could
be brought under the cradled stone, then thrown over the top and then
brought back to the pulling gang, so that only the downhill side of
the cradled stone actually touches the rope.
Note that this configuration produces almost a 2-to-1 mechanical
advantage - the stone rolls 1 step forward for 2 steps taken by the
hauling crew; This requires only half of the pulling force that would
be required to move a stone sitting on a cart to which the rope is
attached.
Garry Bryan
David Gressett (gres...@mail.iglobal.net) wrote:
: ga...@sr.hp.com (Garry Bryan) wrote:
: >Garry (%^{>
Absolutely! There were drawings and left over rememnants of these cradles and
for years it was thought they were used as holders for grain or such. The
application of the cradle to turn a block into a spool demands a total
rethinking of the construction techniques. A simple boardwalk of parallel
planks makes the movement across sand easy. Either that or a clay road bed.
The blocks could be pulled up the sides of the pyramid like moving a wheelchair
up stairs wth a convienent resting point on each step. The pyramids could have
been constructe much faster and easier than previously thought. Wish I could
remember the source of the info. It was awhile ago. . .
Garry (%^{>
dtak
In article <33188F...@lynx.bc.ca>, jirim...@lynx.bc.ca wrote:
> <HTML><BODY>
>
Why are you posting in HTML? Its a real pain in the ass on a newsreader..
Dave
Martin Stower
ga...@sr.hp.com (Garry Bryan) wrote:
>Absolutely! There were drawings and left over rememnants of these cradles and
>for years it was thought they were used as holders for grain or such. The
>application of the cradle to turn a block into a spool demands a total
>rethinking of the construction techniques. A simple boardwalk of parallel
>planks makes the movement across sand easy. Either that or a clay road bed.
>The blocks could be pulled up the sides of the pyramid like moving a wheelchair
>up stairs wth a convienent resting point on each step. The pyramids could have
>been constructe much faster and easier than previously thought. Wish I could
>remember the source of the info. It was awhile ago. . .
>
>Garry (%^{>
Please try, though. The idea's been mentioned on this group before, but
I've never seen a reference, and I've not seen it mentioned elsewhere . . .
Martin
Jiri Mruzek
jmca...@gtn.net wrote:
> In article <331571...@lynx.bc.ca>, Jiri says...
>>Predynastic Diorite flasks are not a puzzle - they are proof of power
>>tools
>> Excuse me but how are these proof of power tools?
>> Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
The drilling bit sank into the discussed core at the rate
of 1:60. Compare that to the rate of power tools today, in
drilling the same material. I remember reading here that
the modern drills descend at a much milder slope.
The modern drills are power tools. Since they don't work
granite as efficiently, as the ancient tools - that makes
the ancient tools more advanced. They had to be power tools..
I know, one could develop a lot of pressure using truly
large crude tools. But then any accuracy would be lost.
In contrast, we admire the finesse of workmanship of the
paper-thin granite works left us even from the predynastic
period.
I tell you what. It is very nice that archaeological digs
turn up evidence of Egypt's past indicating a Lo-Tech society.
But this is only the base of a pyramidal iceberg (Egypt
itself).
Things were different at the tip of the top of the pyramidion.
There was secret knowledge, held by temples. There were
achievements giving a hint of it, like the Great Pyramid,
thousand-ton obelisks posted far away from their quarries,
etc. All those are contradictory to Lo-Tech, indicative of
Hi-Tech, and will cease to be so only if someone comes along
and accomplishes the same by Lo-Tech. I have little doubt,
it will never ever happen. The bragging rights remain firmly
in the camp of believers in ancient "Lost Science".
Regards,
Jiri
Jiri Mruzek
>>> Re: Ancient Egyptian mechanics
> Jiri Mruzek (jirim...@lynx.bc.ca) wrote:
> : wvk wrote:
> : > Marc Line wrote:
>: > > On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, at 09:50:02, wvk cajoled electrons into this
>: > But they didn't have the wheel - or did they?
>: What? ..Oarse, they did. Why, how could anyone be serious in that
>: people, : who must have thought a whole lot in terms of axes, and
>: spinning lathes as according to our own esteamed conservatives(!),
>: the Earth's axis, etc., could not visualise a possible advantage
>: in making a model of a commonplace, and exceedingly simple element
>: of their complex science - the stupid wheel?
>: Like, wow, what !#!&% could possibly admit to such peer-smashed
>: fallacy?
> There was evidence that the Egyptians had made use of something
> called a cradle.
Yes, one or two such cradles were found, once.
> These were semi circles of wood with deep V's cut into them.
> When they were strapped onto the stone blocks, one on opposite
> corners, they formed a pair of wheels with the stone block acting
> like an axle.
But these cradles were found without stone axles inside, and
without instructions on how they were used. The rest is pure
speculation. Kevin D. Quitt and I had a nice discussion on
this subject. You can check it at Deja News.
> A simple matter to roll the confirguration and to even haul
> it up steep steps or ramps by wrapping several turns of rope
> around it. One end would be anchored at the top, the rope run
> down to the block, turned a couple of times around the "axle",
> and then run back to the top and hauled in. Oh, for a graphics
> package, apicture is worth a thousand words. . .
> Garry (%^{>
Kevin's theeory had rolled along nicely until I pointed out
that as envisioned, i.e., applying the pulling force to the
axle directly, rather than the outside of the wheel, produces
a mechanical disadvantage!
Subsequently, this nicely rounded theory had rolled over, and
seemed dead. I am afraid, you are waking up a Zombie.
Regards,
Jiri
Martin Stower
Better to say that not everyone uses Netscape to read news.
Martin
Unknown
Repost to repost
In article <5f84ho$7...@lana.zippo.com>,
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net) wrote:
In article <331727...@lynx.bc.ca>, Jiri says...
>jmca...@gtn.net wrote:
>>In article <331571...@lynx.bc.ca>, Jiri
>>says...
>>>Predynastic Diorite flasks are not a puzzle - they are proof of
>>>power tools
>>Excuse me but how are these proof of power tools?
>Foremostly, the drilling bit sank into the discussed core at
>the rate of 1:60.
How was this determined?
> Compare that to the rate of power tools today
>in drilling the same material. I remember reading here that
>the modern drills descend at a much milder slope>
>The modern drills are power tools. Since they don't work granite>
>as efficiently, as the ancient tools - they are inferior. That makes
>the ancient tools more advanced.
What evidence do you have that rotary tools were used. I am mainly
looking for studies that show surface texture at the microscopic
level using the SEM and latex casts of the surface of the worked
rock or minerals.
> They had to be power tools.
Really... Only if it took a few days to make it.
>I know that one could develop a lot of pressure using truly
>large crude tools. But then any accuracy would be lost.
Pressure is not the most importiant consideration in lapidary skills.
It is the hardness of the grinding medium.
>In contrast, we admire the finesse of workmanship of the paperthin
>granite works left us even from the predynastic period.
Paper thin granite works... What are these? Making thinslices of
granite can be easily done (very time consuming) using simple lapidary
techniques. In fact a turntable lap is not nessesary to do it. Just a
flat surface, a holder for the granite,natural resin, water and a
grinding/sanding medium with a hardness preferably greater than 7
(quartz, garnet, corundum etc.)with coarse to fine grain sizes and a
lot of skill.
Archae Solenhofen (jmca...@gtn.net)
>I tell you what. It is very nice that archaeological digs turn up
>evidence of Egypt's past, which indicates a Lo-Tech society.
>But this only the base of a pyramid ( Egypt itself).
>Things were different at the top of the pyramidion. There was
>secret knowledge, held by temples. There were achievements
>like the Great Pyramid, thousand-ton obelisks posted far away
>from their quarries, etc.
>All those are contradictory to Lo-Tech, indicative of hi-Tech,
>and will cease to be so only if someone comes along and
>accomplishes the same by Lo-Tech. I have little doubt, it will
>never ever happen. The bragging rights remain in the camp of
>believers in ancient Lost Science
>Regards,
>Jiri
maguirre
First some basics on machining
There are three basic types of machine-tools:
a) the tool is fixed and the worked item moves i.e. lathe.
Its ancestor is the potters wheel. It was used extensively
for carpentry but to make it work hard materials you need a
lot of power.
b) the tool rotates and the worked piece is fixed i.e. the
milling machine, also the drilling machine. The ancestor is
the production of holes by the use of a rod that is put in
quick rotation by a bow. You can use it to work hard
materials with low power but at the price of a long time.
c) machines that do not use a tool but an abrasive dust i.e.
grinding an honing machines. The ancestor is the human hand
polishing. They are very slow but they can provide very high
accuracy with hard materials
Now a few points:
On ultrasonic machining.
The material is removed from a workpiece with particles of
abrasive that vibrate at high frequency in a water slurry
circulating through a narrow gap between a vibrating tool
and the workpiece. That is the reason it is used today to
make holes of the shape of the tool on hard material. It
cannot do conical shapes. My understanding is that the
reason Dunn choose it as the solution, is that he is in the
business of selling many books and make money. He is not in
the business of advancing our knowledge (not even advancing
our knowledge over Atlantis)
On hard stone machining,
With them today we use generally grinding machines that uses
abrasive dust. To have power tools is not enough. I
recommend to try anybody to make a hole with a power driller
on granite (not to say diorite). First he will'need a vidia
tool, second unless the drill had a 'hammeringน function it
will not work at all and third with vidia and hammering, it
will take a long time. Last the accuracy will be very bad.
On Petrie.
The comments of Flinders Petrie on how Egyptians could do
machining are worst than worthless. It is surprising that
'Anti-Establishment' people do not believe Egyptologist when
speak over things they know about (history of Egypt) and
believe them when they speak of things they do not know
about (machining). In his reference about accuracy on
flatness he underestimate the accuracy that was normally
achieved by instrument makers of his time by a factor of
more than 100. This is not serious! He believes that a
thread that advances at a rate of 1/60 is a signal of the
advancing of the tool. Neither the Egyptians nor us can
advance at that speed! Try the following experiment: make a
deep hole on concrete with a power tool. Measure the time
needed, check the rating speed of the tool and diameter of
the boring head. This will allow you to calculate the
advancing rate of the tool. If it is less than 1/1000 I will
send a bottle of good wine to the person coming first with
the figures. Conclusion Flinders Petrie is useless as a
guide to the subject.
Egyptians for sure knew the rotating drill. I remember to
have been a figure on a book of an Egyptian making a stone
flask. It appears to be working with some type of hand held
rotating driller. The tools had counter weights to provide
stability and inertia. Sorry I cannot remember the title but
was a reputable book of Conventional Egyptology. Now I
remember the publisher it was Dover.
How the Egyptians did their hard stone flasks was a really
difficult task and took a lot of time. This difficulty is
enhanced if we take into account that many flasks are high
accuracy and have narrow openings. Nevertheless it will be
also very difficult using power tools. It will be quicker
but not easier. Also it will be impossible with ultrasonic
machine.
With this note I am not providing the solution to the
'mistery'. I do not know about the arts of the hard stone
worker. It will be interested to know how hard stones are
work, how you can drill holes on them and if and how you can
make a bottle with them. I guess the final solution will
only be a long and deep study of the subject that finish
producing a replica of an Egyptian flask of good quality and
accuracy and done by hand by somebody using Egyptian
technology.
Rodney Small
Can you name one book that Dunn has ever published? I don't know of
any. He did have an article published in Analog in 1984, but also
explains his theory free of charge on his web site. Further, the reason
Dunn chose ultrasonic machining as a solution to the Valley Temple core
is that no simpler solution has been set forth to explain this artifact.
> On hard stone machining,
> With them today we use generally grinding machines that uses
> abrasive dust. To have power tools is not enough. I
> recommend to try anybody to make a hole with a power driller
> on granite (not to say diorite). First he will'need a vidia
> tool, second unless the drill had a 'hammeringน function it
> will not work at all and third with vidia and hammering, it
> will take a long time. Last the accuracy will be very bad.
You seem to be making Dunn's point -- how did the Egyptians drill the
Valley Temple core with simple copper implements?
> On Petrie.
> The comments of Flinders Petrie on how Egyptians could do
> machining are worst than worthless. It is surprising that
> 'Anti-Establishment' people do not believe Egyptologist when
> speak over things they know about (history of Egypt) and
> believe them when they speak of things they do not know
> about (machining).
Don't worry -- I don't believe most Egyptologists know much about the
ancient history of Egypt either.
>In his reference about accuracy on
> flatness he underestimate the accuracy that was normally
> achieved by instrument makers of his time by a factor of
> more than 100.
What is your basis for this statement? Petrie talks about the accuracy
of the casing stones as being 1 part in 7500. You're saying that
instrument makers in the 1880s achieved accuracy of 1 part in 750,000?
>This is not serious! He believes that a
> thread that advances at a rate of 1/60 is a signal of the
> advancing of the tool.
So what do you think it's a signal of?
>Neither the Egyptians nor us can
> advance at that speed!
Except by ultrasonic drilling?
>Try the following experiment: make a
> deep hole on concrete with a power tool. Measure the time
> needed, check the rating speed of the tool and diameter of
> the boring head. This will allow you to calculate the
> advancing rate of the tool. If it is less than 1/1000 I will
> send a bottle of good wine to the person coming first with
> the figures. Conclusion Flinders Petrie is useless as a
> guide to the subject.
Again, how was the apparent 1/60 rate achieved?
>
> Egyptians for sure knew the rotating drill. I remember to
> have been a figure on a book of an Egyptian making a stone
> flask. It appears to be working with some type of hand held
> rotating driller. The tools had counter weights to provide
> stability and inertia. Sorry I cannot remember the title but
> was a reputable book of Conventional Egyptology. Now I
> remember the publisher it was Dover.
But Conventional Egyptology does not credit the ancient Egyptians with
the rotating drill, as far as I can tell. Listing a publisher doesn't
tell us much.
> How the Egyptians did their hard stone flasks was a really
> difficult task and took a lot of time. This difficulty is
> enhanced if we take into account that many flasks are high
> accuracy and have narrow openings. Nevertheless it will be
> also very difficult using power tools. It will be quicker
> but not easier. Also it will be impossible with ultrasonic
> machine.
Why impossible with ultrasonic drilling?
> With this note I am not providing the solution to the
> 'mistery'. I do not know about the arts of the hard stone
> worker. It will be interested to know how hard stones are
> work, how you can drill holes on them and if and how you can
> make a bottle with them. I guess the final solution will
> only be a long and deep study of the subject that finish
> producing a replica of an Egyptian flask of good quality and
> accuracy and done by hand by somebody using Egyptian
> technology.
But Mark Lehner goes around telling the world that everything the ancient
Egyptians did can be duplicated, given the luxury of all the time they
had. You mean he really has not figured out the solution yet? Shocked,
I'm simply shocked!