Tom wrote: <snip> > I listened to an interview in which the interviewee said that the > machining on the granite box's inner corners was too precise to have > been done even by modern machine tools.
The coffer in the King's Chamber, and others, show a precision of manufacture in granite that defies most explanations, and is a basis for the interesting part of Dunn's book [not the 'power plant', which he admitted in correspondence with me was built up at the request of the publisher]. the King's Chamberis lined with large granite slabs whose fit is beyond the 'known' technology of the time. Conventionally labelen red Aswan granite, the texture does not match known samples, but suggests pieces of granite artfully cemented together. There are very large granite coffers with large very flat granite surfaces. At the top of the King's Chamber are granite beams 27 feet long. There are many statues and other artifacts of hard stone whose fabrication has been a mystery. What has been overlooked is that the ancent Egyptians were skilled alchemists with a sophisticated knowledge of cements. Many of these hard stone artifacts could have been made from weathered stone dust bound into concrete. Each artifact must be individually studied to test this hypothesis. Nothing is simple here. > > >rediscovered by Prof. Davidovits decades ago. The Giza plateau contains a > >thick bed of clay-bearing limestone, which is exposed as the body of the > >Spninx, now badly eroded. That bed of limestone is also exposed at the south > >of the Giza plateau. When soaked in water, the clay liquifies and the > >limestone crumbles into a mud. When some simple chemicals, including > >concentrated lye, are added, the clay is converted into a binder which > >slowly cures, producing a limestone concrete which looks like native stone. > > Where did they get all the lye? You aren't the first to ask this question. Davidovits proposes that the chemistry was discovered by accident in association with cooking bread. Natron, a mineral of sodium salts, is used for seasoning. Wood and other plnat ash contain silica, potassium and sodium hydroxides. Mixed with water, a possible product is sodium silicate, or water glass, used as a binder and cement into modern times. That, mixed with fine silt from the nile (quartz) makes a pottery clay which was used to make thousands of fine pottery in the Third Kingdom, before the pyramids. These vases are so hard they will blunt steel tools. During the time of the pyramid building, the population of Egypt was about two million. The ash from cooking fires, if collected, could easily support the pyramid projects. Remember that this silica-based cement chemically binds to limestone and granite, so it is like epoxy, not Portland Cement. Very little is needed and you will observe it only with sophisticated analysis. I find it odd that, given that a > chemical analysis would show this that this reaction happened, that > Professor Davidovits is the only researcher to have reached this > conclusion. A good question. If you study ancient technology from a modern standpoint, many opportunities to connect the dots were missed. i could go on at length about academic politics, which applies to Egyptology as well as Cold Fusion. Same script, different characters. If they poured the blocks, why blocks, why not just form > up a layer and pour it all at once? How will you contain all that weight in a layer two feet deep and hundreds of feet on an edge? In my analysis of a 'typical' tier halfway through the project, it takes 70+ days to tile one tier. A block might be firm when tamped into a mold, curing to structural strength in a matter of days. Hum, maybe they wanted it to look > like they built it out of quarried blocks. > > Now if I can just figure out how to build one of those transporter > beams like the SS Enterprise has. They didn't need one, just a parade of head-carriers or bucket brigades passing on 30 pound batches. Mike Carrell
