Atlantis Online
August 19, 2022, 08:26:56 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Remains of ancient civilisation discovered on the bottom of a lake
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071227/94372640.html
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

How to Build a Pyramid

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How to Build a Pyramid  (Read 6985 times)
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2007, 03:14:36 pm »

Quote
Where did you get that picture from?

Why?  I can'treally remember.  I keep telling myself to make a note of where I get my information, but I'm a bit negligent that way.  If I find a picture in a book, I scan it into my computer and then up-load it to Photobucket.

The point is Catastrophe - and I do wish you'd get over whatever it is that's bugging you about me - you and someone else seem to think I'M someone else - how do you know for a fact that the picture is depicting brick making?  Look at the guy on the lower left of the picture, stooping to get the load on his shoulders.  That block he's got hanging from the shoulder harness is awfully large for a brick.  And why would depictions of everyday brick making - a most common endeavor - be placed inside a tomb like it was something important? 

Did you read the information Pfhoryan had posted about? PIXE, PIGE and NMR study of the masonry of the pyramid of Cheops at Giza, by Guy Demortier, as well as a number of other papers.  I was trying to post a link to those papers but it didn't work for some reason.  It says it available online at www.sciencedirect.com but when I went there, I couldn't find this exact paper.  I had Pfhoryan e-mail to me so I could read it.  If you send him a private message, he'll likely send it to you as well.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2007, 03:48:11 pm by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2007, 07:02:38 pm »

Ok - now I remember.  I scanned it in from the document I printed out - the one I mentioned earlier.
PIXE, PIGE and NMR study of the masonry of the pyramid of Cheops at Giza by Guy Demortier. 
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2007, 01:07:54 am »

Quote
That block he's got hanging from the shoulder harness is awfully large for a brick.  And why would depictions of everyday brick making - a most common endeavor - be placed inside a tomb like it was something important?

That brick is also awfully small for a pyramid block.

Quote
The painted decoration
(in Rehhmire's tomb)
Quote
includes numerous scenes relating to agriculture and craftwork, many of which provide information concerning such activities as jewellery-making and the activities in sculptors' studios, which have served to supplement archaelogical and experimental data.

Quote
The paintings and bas-reliefs in some tombs, especially in the New Kingdom, provide clear information on the techniques used to produce unfired bricks, sculpt large statues, and use enormous blocks using inclined planes, and it is assumed that these techniques were not much different from those used previously during the Old Kingdom.

So, in fact, all sorts of mundane activities were pictured.

Wink

I asked the source of the above because the wrong dynasty was stated and the picture was back to front (unless perhaps you reversed it in scanning. Anyway, no problem.

Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2007, 01:14:57 am »

See also:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/rekhmire.htm

http://www.egyptsites.co.uk/upper/luxorwest/tombs/nobles/rekhmire.html

http://alain.guilleux.free.fr/gournah_rekhmire/Pb152648.jpg


http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/198304/mirrors.of.the.past.htm


Quote
In the tomb of Rekhmire, governor of Thebes and vizier during the reigns of Tuthmose III (1504-1450 B.C.) and Amenophis II (1450-1425 B.C.), are scenes from the temple workshops: goldsmiths, leather workers and rope-makers, carpenters and cabinet makers, brick makers and masons. Like the farmers and cooks, ancient artisans established systems for creating wares, some of which continue to be used by modern Egyptians. Today, in the area called Fayyum, for example, a brick maker gathers sticky mud in his hands, pats it into a rectangular wooden mold, then puts it in the sun to dry - exactly as a bricklayer did in Rekhmire's tomb. These unfired bricks were also used, only a decade or so ago, by architect Hassan Fathy in the model village he built in New Qurna, to show that traditional construction methods were still useful. And in spite of official policy, ordinary fellahin still use sun-dried mud bricks for mending and enlarging their own homes.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 01:34:17 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2007, 02:12:38 am »

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:oAjGNIZZmZkJ:www.cement.org/bookstore/download.asp%3Fmediatypeid%3D1%26id%3D14764%26itemid%3DLB30+Demortier+nmr&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk

Quote
In it, material scientists claim new chemical evidence of concrete in the higher levels of the pyramids.

There is some interesting information there.

Quote
A zeolitic cementitious material, called "geopolymer" by Davidovits, was neither observed by light microscopy nor detected by XRD, DTA, SEM, EDXA, or chemical analysis in the sample examined. Neither was an aggregate-cement fabric observed. Seepage of "geopolymeric concrete" into the open joints between almost all underlying pyramid blocks is obviously nonexistent. Shapes and sizes of pyramid and temple blocks seem too diverse to have been cast in molds.

Quote
These analyses are performed in the present study, and it is concluded thatthis sample is a natural limestone that was quarried locally in the Eocene Mokattam Formation. There is no evidence of the special textures and zeolite cement that must exist if the sample is concrete.

Quote
Several samples of pyramids from Giza were obtained. The samples were analysed by scanning electron microscopy, electron diffraction by X-rays, powder X-ray diffraction, inductively coupled plasmography, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy and other techniques. Some scientists who have recently studied the pyramids have suggested that the pyramids werepoured into place, stone by stone. The prevailing theory among Egyptologists is, of course, that the pyramids were built from blocks of natural stone. All of the results obtained during this study directly support the concept that the pyramids are made of limestone and are not cementitious in nature.


« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 02:22:00 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2007, 02:34:22 am »

Added to this I have posted definition of slurry and shown that this requires sub-millimetre size particles. That would require (according to that theory) pulverizing 5-6 million tons of rock.

One of the most cogent arguments is why would they carefully remove fossils just to put them back into moulded blocks?

Why would they do this?

Quote
The fossil shells would remain intact for the most part but would be jumbled in pyramids blocks. Why would the pyramid builders make more work for themselves by crushing them?

This of course is no explanation. You need to pulverize the rock to make a slurry. If you use chunks of rock there would bw no flat surfaces - they would be ragged.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 02:52:49 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2007, 03:00:27 am »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article656117.ece

Quote
The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples.

So they admit it is not proven?

And they would say that wouldn't they?
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2007, 03:06:09 am »

Quote
New support for their case came from Guy Demortier, a materials scientist at Namur University in Belgium. Originally a sceptic, he told the French magazine that a decade of study had made him a convert

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this Grin  To me - Davidovits shows how it could be done with pouring the cement blocks, and to me that's logical.  Since no one has been able to duplicate the process, and to me the logic is missing as to how they got enough men that would be required to move a block - near enough to the block to move it.  I don't see how they could quarry with bronze tools, They didn't have ropes like we do today - their ropes would have been made by hand and I doubt they had the strength to pull that weight; it would have taken some delicate maneuvering to get those stones so perfectly lined up, especially near the top, and when they did get near the top, where did the men stand to work the stones into place?  Until someone can actually replicate this total procedure, with the perfection of the ancient building, I just won't be convinced.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2007, 03:11:02 am »

Quote
The concrete theorists also point out differences in density of the pyramid stones, which have a higher mass near the bottom and bubbles near the top, like old-style cement blocks.

It's about those bubbles too.

Oh -  I meant to say to you that when I used the word "slurry" I was not necessarily referring to the scientific application as such:  to me - a slurry is any paste from almost liquid to almost solid.  Even a cake mix.

Quote
And they would say that wouldn't they?
 
 
 

Wouldn't you - as a professional - want the absolute proof for yourself?  From what they had to work with, they're pretty positive, but to be absolutely positive, then yes, they would have to quantify their deductions until they're allowed something better to work with.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 03:13:35 am by Qoais » Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2007, 03:14:59 am »

Quote
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this   To me - Davidovits shows how it could be done with pouring the cement blocks, and to me that's logical.

OK I am seriously trying to understand this theory.

You say (and I agree) that it could be done pouring 'cement'. This does not mean it was so done.

To pour you must have a slurry. This means minute pulverized particles. Hence the reply on fossils is meaningless as the fossils would be pulverized. That is why I find it strange when it states why make more work.

I would seriously like to know if you can point me to the particle size of this so called cement.I would be most grateful if you can. Meanwhile I will continue to try to understand.

Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2007, 03:23:49 am »

Quote
Geopolymers, also called polysialates, are a class of amorphous aluminosilicate materialsformed near ambient temperatures. Chemically, geopolymers consist of cross-lined units ofAlO4-and SiO4tetrahedra, where charge-balancing cations are provided by alkali metal cationssuch as Li+, Na+, K+, and Cs+. Geopolymers are formed by reacting aluminosilicate materialswith highly caustic, aqueous alkaline (MOH) silicate solutions, where M= alkali cation. Duringthe synthesis of geopolymers, dissolution of the aluminosilicate precursor takes place first,followed by the cross-linking and formation of the geopolymer structure. The process of“geopolymerization” and the study of the subsequent geopolymers has been the subject of anumber of numerous studies.1-26Applications of geopolymers have included ceramic matrixcomposites,1-6waste encapsulation7-9, and alternative cements.10-19,24With the exception of Hos et al.26, the aluminosilicate precursors for the fabrication ofmonolithic geopolymers have been limited to naturally derived sources and industrial wasteproducts, e.g. fly ash, slag, raw minerals and calcined kaolin (metakaolin). In their work, Hos etal. created Al2O3-2SiO2coupons, which were heated to 1550oC, melted with an oxy-acetylenetorch, and rapidly cooled. The resulting glass, which was milled, had a surface area 15 – 16m2/g, and mean particle size of 3.2 mm.

Here is one reference to geopolymers having mean particle size of 3.2mm.

If Davidivits' geopolymer is similar it would mean pulverizing the GP to this particle size.
Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #26 on: April 27, 2007, 03:29:54 am »

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6902002-claims.html

Quote
100 microns to about 5,000 microns

This is the particle size quoted forn a hydraulic cement.

Here is another reference:

www.freepatentsonline.com/5948193.html

Quote
http://Greensheets having enhanced flexibility and strength are prepared from a greensheet casting composition comprising alumina or other ceramic having a mean particle size of less than about 1 micron

I am googling:

Davidovits slurry particle size.

I will not put up any more references to particle size unless they relate to Davidovits.

You can be sure there are around the sub-mm level.

« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 03:37:41 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #27 on: April 27, 2007, 04:00:36 am »

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/civilization/making-cements-with-plant-extracts

Quote
The starting stone material (silicate or silico-aluminate) is dissolved by the organic extracts, and the viscous slurry is then poured into a mould where it hardens.

This is from an article by D. Is he saying the GP stones were also dissolved in organic extracts?

Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #28 on: April 27, 2007, 05:09:45 am »

I don't understand this:

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/pyramids-2-the-evidences/5/

Quote
In the early twentieth century, he noticed that the famous statue of Pharaoh Khafra (or Khefren) revealed no sign of tool marks. Yet it had been made of diorite, the hardest type of stone, at a time when artisans possessed only simple stone or copper chisels. He concluded that with tools like these it would have been impossible to produce such a masterpiece.

and

Quote
A chunk of limestone taken in the quarry was very easily disaggregated within 24 hours, leaving the nummulites and the clay gently separated from each other, whereas a chunk of the hard Mokkatam limestone did not disintegrate at all.

http://www.gameroom.com/gizapump/pg4.htm

Quote
The only thing found in this chamber ia a large lidless coffin or coffer, of highly polished granite This beautiful granite box was made from a solid block of chocolate-colored granite and is even harder than the granite walls of the King's Chamber. It is 89.8 inches long, 38.7 inches wide and 41.2 inches high, really too large to have been brought in through the passages; it is assumed it was put there by the original builders.

So my question is:
If hard limestone will not 'disaggregate' will granite 'disaggregate'?

If not, then those heavy granite structures must have been transported by 'conventional' means.

If you had to build ramps for the granite structures (hard work building ramps) why not use them for the blocks?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2007, 05:34:10 am by Catastrophe » Report Spam   Logged
Catastrophe
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 147


« Reply #29 on: April 27, 2007, 10:14:51 am »

OK I have finally cracked the deceipt (not intentional I am sure - just through ignorance).

I have concentrated on particle size. Slurry statistics etcetera.

The key word is disaggregation.

Get yourself some scientific advice.

Aggregation is what entropy is all about. It is possible to reverse aggregation both in dispersions (solid in liquid) and emulsions (e.g., oil in water) BUT it requires energy input.

This disaggregation is not spontaneous. It requires energy input.

I have been pursuing the scientific line that slurries require minute particle size. D has been suggesting (without foundation I believe you will discover) that disaggregation can occur spontaneously. It cannot. A small demonstration - a small squeeze of the bag -  cannot be replicated on a 5-6 million ton pyramid easily.

PLEASE get a scientist to check this.

Your belief system and credibility are at stake.

I am offering this as honest scientific comment.

Best wishes

Cat




Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy