Here is the opening paragraph of Guy Demortier's work:
1. The construction with hewn blocks represents an
impossible task
The Cheops’ pyramid, with a volume of
2.7 · 106 m3, was completed over a period of 20–25
years. One can then estimate the average daily
cadence at 300–400 blocks having all an average
volume of 1m 3 (i.e. 750–1000 tons). This represents
one block put at the right place every 2 min.
To achieve this goal, 1m 2 of hewn face would have
been ready every 20 s! What a performance with
tools made of stone or soft copper! Hoisting huge
blocks of more than two tons with rudimentary
means (wheels and pulleys did not exist at that
time) is evidently an impossible task. As several
dozens of those monuments have been constructed
on the left bank of the Nile by the Pharaohs of the
first dynasties, we cannot imagine the average time
of construction of each pyramid to be longer.
When looking carefully at the surface of the
blocks of the pyramid of Cheops (those visible
today and therefore those underlying the casing
blocks, which totally disappeared), one clearly sees
irregularity in the shape (Fig. 1), but a remarkable
close fit of adjacent faces (Fig. 2). It would be
surprising that these blocks could have been so
badly cut but so perfectly joined. This admirable
close fit would have been easier to achieve if the
blocks had been hewn with perfect rectangular
shapes! Furthermore, this care in this optimal
juxtaposition was useless because these blocks
(visible today) were originally hidden under the
casing [1,2].
We can also see that blocks of Fig. 1app ear to
be more porous in the top part than in the bottom
part. This porous feature on the top of the blocks We can also see that blocks of Fig. 1app ear to We can also see that blocks of Fig. 1app ear to be more porous in the top part than in the bottom part. This porous feature on the top of the blockspropose a construction similar to our modern
concrete.
Narrow channels, with a section of 20 cm · 20
cm, starting from the Queen’s chamber and
investigated by Gantenblink’s robot (Fig. 3)
clearly indicate that they were not carved [3].
There is no gap between the two lateral sides
(walls) and the ceiling of this conduit. On a TV
show of the Gantenblink’s expedition, one could
see that no protrude (convex) defect appears in the
walls and in the ceiling of this narrow tunnel.
Irregularities are only of hollow (concave) shapes.
A carving procedure would have given convex and
concave irregularities in equal proportions. When
thinking about a moulding procedure, the apparent
cavities could be understood by some loss of
material during the demoulding.
Many other arguments including (a) the chaotic
organisation of nummulites in the blocks, with
respect to parallel alignment of shells in natural
stones, (b) the high water content (about 13%) of
the whole pyramid measured by the transmission
electromagnetic waves, (c) traces of mortars
mostly at the base of the blocks, play in favour of another way of construction: not natural hewn and hoisted stones but the agglomeration of natural limestone using a binder. . . which contains natron,alumino-silicates and certainly water.
All ingredients have been transported in small quantities,dropped in moulds installed progressively onto or on the side of blocks which were previously moulded.
Pictures corresponding to the above:
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t267/Qoais/DemortierPic1.jpghttp://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t267/Qoais/DemortierPic2.jpghttp://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t267/Qoais/DemortierPic3.jpg2. The chemistry of the binder
In the 70s, Davidovits [1] proposed that the
great pyramids were made of a kind of concrete
whose basic binding element was natron: a sodium
carbonate. Natron was indeed widely extracted
from a region of the North of Egypt, on the left
bank of the Nile, very close to the site of Giza. The
binder is obtained by some chemical reaction giving
rise to a geopolymer (name given by Davidovits
to a class of x-polysialates, x being an alkaline
nucleus, in particular sodium) [4]. Natron, lime
and water form caustic soda, which reacts with
aluminous limestone to yield the basic geopolymer.
A mineral ore containing arsenic (scorodite
or olivenite) is added to produce sodium arsenate
acting as an activating ingredient that could have
been used in various concentrations to control the
speed of the hydraulic setting. The invention is
attributed to Imhotep, the architect of the pyramid
of the Pharaon Djeser.
3. Physico-chemical analyses
In addition to the analyses carried out by Davidovits
with X-ray fluorescence [5] and X-ray
diffraction, which showed that the blocks mainly
consisted of limestone (85–92%), we have also
performed investigations on a little number of
samples from the Cheops’ pyramid: elemental
analysis was performed by ion beam analyses,
PIXE and PIGE and structural characterization
by NMR-spectroscopy.
By using the PIGE–PIXE techniques (proton
induced gamma-ray emission or X-ray emission)
we have determined the elemental content of small
fragments. The light elements F, Na, Mg, Al, Si
were quantitatively determined by using PIGE [6],
and K, Ca, Fe and other trace elements by using PIXE [7]. A small sample from the Cheop’s pyramid
is made of a central compact structure containing
mainly limestone with traces of other
elements (Fig. 4(a)). The outer part (Fig. 4(b))
contains a large amount of F, Na, Mg, Al, Si,
indicating that a material to aggregate the limestone
has been used [8]. The ratios of concentrations
of F, Na, Mg, Al and Si in the coating
relative to the bulk are given in Table 1. Except for
Al, those ratios are much more greater than one,
indicating a complete different structure. The highconcentration of sodium is certainly due to the useof natron for the binder. The PIXE spectra of Fig.5(a) and (b) illustrate the low content of calcium in the coating relative to the bulk. Furthermore, the
significant signal of As in the coating may be
attributed to some additional ore which could be
scorodite as more extensively discussed below. In
addition to PIGE and PIXE measurements which
allow us to have insight to the elemental composition,
the nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy
(NMR) of Al27 and Si29 enables us to
determine the type of synthetic medium (basic pH)
and to differentiate a natural environment (neutral
pH) from an artificial one. We have then fabricated
the binder based on the geopolymer formula
of Davidovits [1]. The NMR-spectra of Al and Si
on this modern synthetic material shows typical
resonances assigned to Si [Si(OSi)4] and Al (tetrahedral)
in this synthesized material which is highly
chemically basic (pH around 10). The NMR
spectra (Fig. 6) of several samples of Cheops’
pyramid indicate that the tetrahedral Al content is10–15% of that obtained for the pure synthetic
mixture reproduced in our laboratory and which
exhibits a very fine adherence with small gravels
(Fig. 4(d)). This value of 10–15% of the NMR
signals is in direct relation with the amount of
geopolymeric binder and, consequently, also relatedto the original water content of the blocks
(Fig. 6(a) and (b)). Si-NMR leads to the same
conclusion.
http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t267/Qoais/DemortierPic4004.jpg