Super heated water and the Pyramids

So , what I think I haven't been clear about is that there are 2 options for superheated steam, and they are very different, but both could probably weaken granite.

Option 1: Preventing the water from boiling by putting it under pressure so it can't boil.

This option can get steam all the way up to 650 degrees C or higher. In theory it can reduce granite fully to magma at temperatures lower than the melting point of copper.

It requires something made of copper that can hold in more than 1000 atmospheres worth of pressure.

The heat source would probably be fire, rather than sunlight.


Option 2: The water is prevented from boiling due to a lack of nucleation sites. (Like water superheated in a microwave.)

This option can only get the water up to about 279 degrees C. Perhaps enough to weaken granite, but certainly not enough to reduce it to magma.

There is no requirement to put the water under pressure, but the vessel holding it needs to be perfectly smooth, so it has no nucleation sites. The water's holder probably wouldn't be made out of copper, but something else that's smooth, like maybe crystal.

The heat source would be reflected sunlight, but ONLY the 2.45 ghz frequency is important. (About 1 to 10 cm wavelength). Visible light is in the terahertz range (a few hundred nano meters.)

Copper is a great reflector for that frequency.



The trouble is: I don't know which option they used, or if they used both?

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
They wouldn't have been able to melt copper if they weren't able to make fires that are sufficiently hot for this application as well.

You can melt copper with a charcoal fire... but note that the Egyptians didn't really have a lot of copper and bronze tools until late Bronze Age (they were the last ones to learn how to forge iron, which takes even hotter temperatures.) And while that might have been sufficient for superheated steam (if they could dry it enough), we don't see any evidence anywhere of other things.

Like big copper vats or strong boilers of any sort (unlike, say, the Israelites a thousand years later who had large metal vats (according to the Bible).

Watch this video.

www.youtube.com...

It's a fairly simple apparatus, and not very big. I don't know how hot he got the steam, but you can see how application of a sufficiently hot fire to a sufficiently long copper tube would get you quite a lot of heat.

A solar mirror would probably look similar to this guy's device.

en.wikipedia.org...

Undoubtedly. But the Egyptians couldn't make clear glass (the Romans invented that very valuable thing) and it required high gloss mirrors (covered in glass, by the way.)

Only the second option requires sunlight. The first option might benefit from it but fire will suffice.

They probably didn't use steam cutting. They probably just poured super heated water onto the granite, or exposed it to superheated steam to weaken it.

How would that work (how could they get superheated water if they couldn't make pressurized containers?) - and why pour "superheated water" when you could just build a charcoal fire there and get it to 1200 degrees with no fuss or muss? And how would heat weaken granite? (the heat you referenced on flint was used to make it shatter along certain lines, but for that you need to have a uniform crystalline structure with no inclusions (so no grains of feldspar, etc).

I am glad you asked this question!

It is a special property of both granite and diorite, that soaking them in water at high pressure dramatically reduces their melting point.

Heating them to the same temperatures when they are dry will not hurt them at all.

But you see how weakening it first would enable a copper saw to be able to cut it?

Doesn't seem to be something they used. A copper saw with sand grit is reasonably efficient and doesn't require a lot of "wait until this rock heats up enough" strategies. I can't find any examples of other old technology (other than for flint knapping) where they heat the rock in order to shape it or cut it.

Why didn't they continue to use this technology?

Maybe weakening stone is the only application they ever found for it?

That was my question... why didn't they use it to cut other stone? Why wasn't in all the stone quarries and mines if it was so effective?

There quite a lot of what look like "scoop marks" found at the quarries.

hiddenincatours.com...

They would much easier to explain if the stone had been weakened. That certainly does not look like the kind of mark a diorite pounder would leave.

I don't know how anyone could possibly think that would be what was left over after workers used diorite pounders. Unless they just force themselves to "suspend disbelief."

How did they set it up for mass production (since cutting a single block at a time was a lot slower than having a hundred men pounding out the granite with granite pounders)?

Who says they didn't?

They could have built several apparatuses, and had one for each team of stone cutters that was cutting with those copper saws.

Since metal is durable and they do have images of other processors, where are the fine and strong copper tubes that would be needed? Where's the well polished mirrors? And where are the titles for these specialized craftsmen? Where are the workshops?

There are, apparently, some ancient reliefs/drawings that discuss it. (Although it is also possible that this guy is simply reading the heiroglyphs wrong and hoping nobody will call him out over it.)

gigalinsights.com...

This site is proposing something more bizarre using chemicals. But I think pure water makes more sense, because chemicals would leave a residue, and I don't think any have been found.

Why weren't their mirrors in hot demand all over the Middle East and beyond? A good mirror was very valuable... but Egypt isn't known for its mirrors.

Because they didn't have good optical quality.

Yes. They didn't have any mirrors good enough to make a solar reflector with. That was my point.


If it is reflecting 2.45 ghz then it's really more like a satellite dish. The degree to which electromagnetic radiation is precisely focused by a reflector is proportional to its frequency. Higher frequencies are more precisely focused.

Every tiny little bump is going to change where a high frequency beam of light goes. But lower frequencies are more reasonable about that.

The satellite dishes used by Dish Network to focus the signal from space to your receiver use 11 -14 gigahertz (so a higher frequency than 2.45 ghz) And they usually work just fine even with some dust on them.

Howdy BN

They would much easier to explain if the stone had been weakened. That certainly does not look like the kind of mark a diorite pounder would leave.

That's exactly the markings you get from pounding. I have done it myself on Easter Island, at Mayan sites and in Egypt and Cyprus. Which is why it's identified with pounding and hundreds of pounder were found in that specific quarry.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
It's these kinds of cuts that keep getting found. And they make you wonder what kind of saw they were using.

www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

Copper saw.

With rock weights. Like this: www.oocities.org...

As shown with more detail here.

I'm curious if there also exists a good explanation for the bowls?

hiddenincatours.com...

originally posted by: Hanslune
Howdy BN

They would much easier to explain if the stone had been weakened. That certainly does not look like the kind of mark a diorite pounder would leave.

That's exactly the markings you get from pounding. I have done it myself on Easter Island, at Mayan sites and in Egypt and Cyprus. Which is why it's identified with pounding and hundreds of pounder were found in that specific quarry.

If you've observed it, then I guess it's real. It's like they say: sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

How do the grooves get started? Is it just sort of like you're sliding the stone back and forth the same direction and it gradually digs in?

(Since "pounder" is kind of a misnomer. They're really used more like sand paper, for grinding.)


Visually, they look like the kind of grooves you would make if you were using a shovel to dig in soft dirt.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
...

How do the grooves get started? Is it just sort of like you're sliding the stone back and forth the same direction and it gradually digs in?

...

The use of saws as a method of cutting rock is inferred from marks observed on ancient Egyptian stonework, including pieces of waste rock and finished and unfinished stone objects. Many of these marks have been found, usually observed as grooves cut into surfaces of rock or as striations on cut surfaces (Petrie 1974, Lucas and Harris 1962, Arnold 1991, Stocks 1999; 2001).

How do the grooves get started? Is it just sort of like you're sliding the stone back and forth the same direction and it gradually digs in? (Since "pounder" is kind of a misnomer. They're really used more like sand paper, for grinding.) Visually, they look like the kind of grooves you would make if you were using a shovel to dig in soft dirt.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Hi Marvellous,
These ‘scoop’ marks are a real bone of contention for many , and do throw up many questions :

There is a very uniform width to these ‘scoops’ both on the sides of the Unfinished Obelisk, underneath and on traces on the ground at Aswan quarry where a previous block had been removed.

In fabrication terms, why ‘grind/pound/scrape’ to a certain depth, leaving raised ridges in between each ‘strip’ of work , knowing you have to go back and re-do all the ridges in between?
If it is ‘roughing’ work , in fabrication it’s usually done a bit quicker than ‘finishing’ work.
These scoops have always looked like ‘roughing work’ to me , but in this case, an equal amount of time would have to be spent bringing those ridges in line with the roughing work.

The compound curve scoops under the Unfinished Obelisk are not easy to achieve , even, I believe with modern power tools. If one was ‘bashing/scraping’ out an obelisk, surely the stonemasons would’ve wanted to save time/energy/effort , the pounding would surely have been “in and down” in a squarer fashion than creating slowly ground curves .

To my engineering eye, these scoops look like they were done in ‘strips’ at speed, but I’m open minded about it.
They are found on, under, down the external wall of the trench around the UO.

Did Hans try this technique on granite with diorite? How long did it take to achieve a similar depth/width of strip? Were abrasives used or just stone on stone?
The perfect depth curves here could only have been achieved with a back and forth movement , not ‘bashing/pounding’ as the marks left behind would differ significantly .

Did an edit as txt was all yellow!
[/post]

I've done it and its a type of percussion. Some used them by and and others used wooden handles.

www.oocities.org...




www.academia.edu...

museum-of-artifacts.blogspot.com...://museum-of-artifacts.blogspot.com/2017/01/unfinished-obe lisk-in-aswan-egypt.html

Tiwanaku stone working by using pounders

html2-f.scribdassets.com...

originally posted by: Hanslune
I've done it and its a type of percussion. Some used them by and and others used wooden handles.

www.oocities.org...

There is no dispute that pounders can carve granite. It's just a lot of work for a comparatively small result.

People might be willing to do it for the feeling of being part of something. Sweating out whole days of mindless grind action but feeling by days' end that they made a difference, even if they only got about a square foot or two removed in the whole day.



www.academia.edu...

museum-of-artifacts.blogspot.com...://museum-of-artifacts.blogspot.com/2017/01/unfinished-obe lisk-in-aswan-egypt.html

Weighted copper saws have the issue that, while they certainly can cut stone, you lose a lot of copper. They would wear out saws pretty fast and have to keep replacing them. Using sand or another abrasive can save wear, and get more cut per inch of copper blade, but most of the attempts at replicating this don't end up with cuts that quite match up with the ones found in the stones.

When they use sand for drilling, they don't get the concentric lines that are visible in the circular drill cuts found at the site. They can replicate it using corundum and diamond. But if those were used, then all we should have to do is test them for residue.

www.penn.museum...

In the link that keeps getting posted for egyptian sawing methods, attempting to replicate sawing with ordinary sand as the abrasive ends up with V shaped cuts, rather than straight cuts. I think other attempts have been more successful using diorite powder or other abrasives, but again: where is the residue?

Tiwanaku stone working by using pounders

html2-f.scribdassets.com...

I'm glad this article at least addresses the "shovel shaped" grooves in the rocks. (Although it only describes them as unfinished, with no additional explanation.)

I would feel a lot better if I could see where someone has actually tried using pounders, and ended up with those kinds of marks in a large slab of hard stone.

It's not what you would think would happen, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Also, here is some more discussion of stone vases

ancientpatriarchs.wordpress.com...


Apparently quite a lot of these were found in the tunnels below the pyramid of Djoser.

curiosmos.com...

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous



There is no dispute that pounders can carve granite.

Yep

There is a distinction to be made here, between "can" and "did".

On the one hand, if granite quarrying is so labor intensive, that would make the steles appear all the more precious, and give the builders much to brag about.

On the other hand, if quarrying granite is so labor intensive, that would make them look like colossal fools for expending so many resources just to erect a stele.


But,... what if they could somehow have it both ways? A result that appears maddeningly costly, but at an actual cost that is comparatively moderate?


Then they would appear both very smart, and opulently wealthy.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune
I've done it and its a type of percussion. Some used them by and and others used wooden handles.

www.oocities.org...

There is no dispute that pounders can carve granite. It's just a lot of work for a comparatively small result.

People might be willing to do it for the feeling of being part of something. Sweating out whole days of mindless grind action but feeling by days' end that they made a difference, even if they only got about a square foot or two removed in the whole day.

The work was done by slaves and criminals... and there was no other way to get rocks for buildings and sculptures.

By the way, the Incas lived 2,000+ years AFTER the time of the Great Pyramid (and were on another continent with different rocks and resources.)

Weighted copper saws have the issue that, while they certainly can cut stone, you lose a lot of copper. They would wear out saws pretty fast and have to keep replacing them. Using sand or another abrasive can save wear, and get more cut per inch of copper blade, but most of the attempts at replicating this don't end up with cuts that quite match up with the ones found in the stones.

They didn't have iron, steel, or any other metals and they didn't have a lot of copper. Most of the copper that they managed to smelt had varying levels of impurities (which made it harder; a form of "bronze"... their "bronze" was actually copper alloyed with arsenic (natural alloy)).

They also didn't have 8 hour days or 40 hour weeks (or 7 day weeks.) They didn't have a lot of prisons, but they did have mines and quarries. Tasks like pounding went to the lowest skill level; if you were using a saw, you were someone who was on the level of a craftsman... and those doing the replication haven't spent years learning how to do this.

When they use sand for drilling, they don't get the concentric lines that are visible in the circular drill cuts found at the site.

Same issue. it's being done by "amateurs" (geologists, archaeologists, grad students, etc) and not professionals (someone who's spent most of their life in a stoneworking workshop, using flint and granite and copper tools.)

I would feel a lot better if I could see where someone has actually tried using pounders, and ended up with those kinds of marks in a large slab of hard stone.

I watched them do this at these same Aswan black granite quarries in Egypt (they demonstrated techniques for us)... but didn't take a video because long minutes of watching someone hammer at a spot on a rock is not terribly interesting.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Also, here is some more discussion of stone vases

ancientpatriarchs.wordpress.com...


Apparently quite a lot of these were found in the tunnels below the pyramid of Djoser.

curiosmos.com...

Err... that site is a real mess, attempting to equate things done over a 3,000 year span of time (and in vastly different places) as though they were one creation all done at one single time by a single group of people. Do you have something better to link to?

And yes, there's a lot of chambers (not really tunnels, per se) under Djoser's pyramid. About 2 kilometers, if I'm remembering right. That's how wealthy he was (they put offerings and personal items in there.)

Hey Byrd great posts: one small correction the pyramids are circa 2,500 BCE and the Inca got organized in around 1400 CE so a bit longer than just 2,000 year more like 3,400. However, the Inca used the Tiwanaku and others whom they conquered as their masons and those folks had been doing good work a 1000-1500 years earlier.

originally posted by: Hanslune
Hey Byrd great posts: one small correction the pyramids are circa 2,500 BCE and the Inca got organized in around 1400 CE so a bit longer than just 2,000 year more like 3,400. However, the Inca used the Tiwanaku and others whom they conquered as their masons and those folks had been doing good work a 1000-1500 years earlier.

When I'm tired, I can't do subtraction! Also, I get Incas confused with Mayas and was thinking of their classical period.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Hanslune
Hey Byrd great posts: one small correction the pyramids are circa 2,500 BCE and the Inca got organized in around 1400 CE so a bit longer than just 2,000 year more like 3,400. However, the Inca used the Tiwanaku and others whom they conquered as their masons and those folks had been doing good work a 1000-1500 years earlier.

When I'm tired, I can't do subtraction! Also, I get Incas confused with Mayas and was thinking of their classical period.

Oh yeah I figured it was minor mind cramp. Oh, I put up a thread at HoM that you might want to look at. Its an analysis of a GT stelae - it seems odd to me but that is not my subject. The link also goes to an analysis of California rock art which I believe is an area you have both an interest in and expertise on - at the bottom of said link

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune
I've done it and its a type of percussion. Some used them by and and others used wooden handles.

www.oocities.org...

There is no dispute that pounders can carve granite. It's just a lot of work for a comparatively small result.

People might be willing to do it for the feeling of being part of something. Sweating out whole days of mindless grind action but feeling by days' end that they made a difference, even if they only got about a square foot or two removed in the whole day.

The work was done by slaves and criminals... and there was no other way to get rocks for buildings and sculptures.

Even if you use slaves, you still have to feed them. And every one of them you task with rock bashing could have been working in a field somewhere, harvesting food.

By the way, the Incas lived 2,000+ years AFTER the time of the Great Pyramid (and were on another continent with different rocks and resources.)

Yes........ but this is ATS. Only half of those who read this thread would believe the official timeline.

Weighted copper saws have the issue that, while they certainly can cut stone, you lose a lot of copper. They would wear out saws pretty fast and have to keep replacing them. Using sand or another abrasive can save wear, and get more cut per inch of copper blade, but most of the attempts at replicating this don't end up with cuts that quite match up with the ones found in the stones.

They didn't have iron, steel, or any other metals and they didn't have a lot of copper. Most of the copper that they managed to smelt had varying levels of impurities (which made it harder; a form of "bronze"... their "bronze" was actually copper alloyed with arsenic (natural alloy)).

That's the problem with the copper saws and lapidary technique narrative.

Even with the best abrasives available, you're still going to be losing a lot of copper as you cut.

With super-heated water softening the stone first, you could avoid that problem. The same saw could do lots and lots of cuts, without needing to be reforged constantly.

They also didn't have 8 hour days or 40 hour weeks (or 7 day weeks.) They didn't have a lot of prisons, but they did have mines and quarries. Tasks like pounding went to the lowest skill level; if you were using a saw, you were someone who was on the level of a craftsman... and those doing the replication haven't spent years learning how to do this.

When they use sand for drilling, they don't get the concentric lines that are visible in the circular drill cuts found at the site.

Same issue. it's being done by "amateurs" (geologists, archaeologists, grad students, etc) and not professionals (someone who's spent most of their life in a stoneworking workshop, using flint and granite and copper tools.)

True. But even a highly skilled craftsman would need to reforge or get another saw after doing very many cuts.

I would feel a lot better if I could see where someone has actually tried using pounders, and ended up with those kinds of marks in a large slab of hard stone.

I watched them do this at these same Aswan black granite quarries in Egypt (they demonstrated techniques for us)... but didn't take a video because long minutes of watching someone hammer at a spot on a rock is not terribly interesting.

Did you see the marks?

That's the important issue here.

Yes Diorite pounders can cut granite. But the pounders themselves also erode as you do so. You would need lots and lots of them in order to cut out a big stone.

We should expect to see a bunch of "junk" pounders that had gotten eroded to the point where they couldn't be used anymore. (Unless they found a use for them somewhere.)

Another possible interpretation of the pounders found on the site, though, would be if they were used for finishing and fine work. Then you wouldn't need an unspeakably large number of them. The number found at the site would be sufficient.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Byrd

By the way, the Incas lived 2,000+ years AFTER the time of the Great Pyramid (and were on another continent with different rocks and resources.)

Yes........ but this is ATS. Only half of those who read this thread would believe the official timeline.

Well as noted the Incas came about in historic times about century before the Spanish showed up to spread happiness.

That some may believe bizarre things is their right and in my opinion a personal problem for them to deal with. lol

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

How do the grooves get started?

You start pounding the granite. It pulverizes it into particles

originally posted by: bloodymarvelousIs it just sort of like you're sliding the stone back and forth the same direction and it gradually digs in?

No, that's later - when you're trying to get a smooth, even surface.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous(Since "pounder" is kind of a misnomer. They're really used more like sand paper, for grinding.)

No, they are used for pounding.
Demonstrated at 6:27 below:
NOVA "Secrets of Lost Empires - Pharaoh's Obelisk"

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The work was done by slaves and criminals... and there was no other way to get rocks for buildings and sculptures.

Even if you use slaves, you still have to feed them. And every one of them you task with rock bashing could have been working in a field somewhere, harvesting food.

Egypt was the "grain basket" of the ancient world. It had enough grain to feed everyone (no problem) and enough to export to the other empires. There was no shortage of labor in villages or on the big estates.

They didn't have iron, steel, or any other metals and they didn't have a lot of copper. Most of the copper that they managed to smelt had varying levels of impurities (which made it harder; a form of "bronze"... their "bronze" was actually copper alloyed with arsenic (natural alloy)).

That's the problem with the copper saws and lapidary technique narrative.

Even with the best abrasives available, you're still going to be losing a lot of copper as you cut.

With super-heated water softening the stone first, you could avoid that problem. The same saw could do lots and lots of cuts, without needing to be reforged constantly.

Beyond the fact that they didn't have the materials to be able to superheat water, it would take them a lot longer. They'd have to cut until the rock cooled (not long) and then sit and wait until the water got heated and then enough hot water put on the rock to soften it (because heating water isn't instant, and applying hot water to a stone to get it heated up isn't instant, either) and then find someplace to stand so the scorching hot rock wouldn't burn them and start sawing again.

They had more than one tool there; while one chisel (or saw) was being used, several others were being reshaped and fixed.

True. But even a highly skilled craftsman would need to reforge or get another saw after doing very many cuts.

That's what the apprentices and slaves did.

I watched them do this at these same Aswan black granite quarries in Egypt (they demonstrated techniques for us)... but didn't take a video because long minutes of watching someone hammer at a spot on a rock is not terribly interesting.

Did you see the marks?

Yep.

Yes Diorite pounders can cut granite. But the pounders themselves also erode as you do so. You would need lots and lots of them in order to cut out a big stone.

We should expect to see a bunch of "junk" pounders that had gotten eroded to the point where they couldn't be used anymore. (Unless they found a use for them somewhere.)

There are quite literally tons of them at every quarry site. All of them show signs of use. When they were deemed unsuitable (too small, too rough, too light, too ...whatever) they were just tossed aside.

Another possible interpretation of the pounders found on the site, though, would be if they were used for finishing and fine work. Then you wouldn't need an unspeakably large number of them. The number found at the site would be sufficient.

There are boatloads of them. Really.