Super heated water and the Pyramids

The Ottoman's used some as cannon balls - when they got desperate.

originally posted by: Byrd
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.

No superheated water, but they could have (and probably did) use fire, which would fracture granite's crystalline structures and the feldspar matrix the crystals are in. That effect would be permanent, but wouldn't extend all that deep. Not like you could quarry an obelisk in one day using fire, but fire would make progress much, much faster.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

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

You saw that it took them 7 days to move about 2 inches, right?

And their "working patches" looked pretty different from the ones actually visible on the giant obelisk.

How many years is this pharaoh going to be willing to wait for one stele?

The main problem I see is that rulers usually like to show how powerful they are. They don't like to build things that take 100,000 man hours, but only look like they should have taken 10,000. Because that means their power over 100,000 people only looks like power over 10,000.

If possible, they prefer to do it the other way: take their power over 10,000 slaves, and make it look like power over 100,000 slaves.

originally posted by: Byrd

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.

It still required labor to bring those crops in.

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.

Fixing them isn't really the problem. The problem is that a 2 foot wide blade is going to be gradually getting thinner and thinner.

Eventually you've just got to start over with a new blade.

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.

Neither of us doubt they had enough labor to resharpen/reforge saws.

The question is: did they have enough copper?

When the blade wears, it wears off in tiny little grains that mix in with the rock dust. Grains you are not likely going to be able to recover.

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.

If what you saw is what is seen in the aforementioned video then no: you didn't.

Those marks are clearly different.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

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

You saw that it took them 7 days to move about 2 inches, right?

And their "working patches" looked pretty different from the ones actually visible on the giant obelisk.

How many years is this pharaoh going to be willing to wait for one stele?

The main problem I see is that rulers usually like to show how powerful they are. They don't like to build things that take 100,000 man hours, but only look like they should have taken 10,000. Because that means their power over 100,000 people only looks like power over 10,000.

If possible, they prefer to do it the other way: take their power over 10,000 slaves, and make it look like power over 100,000 slaves.

originally posted by: Byrd

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.

It still required labor to bring those crops in.

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.

Fixing them isn't really the problem. The problem is that a 2 foot wide blade is going to be gradually getting thinner and thinner.

Eventually you've just got to start over with a new blade.

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.

Neither of us doubt they had enough labor to resharpen/reforge saws.

The question is: did they have enough copper?

When the blade wears, it wears off in tiny little grains that mix in with the rock dust. Grains you are not likely going to be able to recover.

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.

If what you saw is what is seen in the aforementioned video then no: you didn't.

Those marks are clearly different.

He'd probably be waiting a long time if he hired two old egyptologists and a couple of locals.
It's proof of concept, and I only posted it because you were pretending not to know how pounders work.

You did see where I mentioned using fire, didn't you? Did you see them build any fires on their granite?

Harte

When the blade wears, it wears off in tiny little grains that mix in with the rock dust. Grains you are not likely going to be able to recover.

Place in crucibles - heat, copper melts stone doesn't - pour off

Copper melts at 1,085
Bronze at 950
Granite at 1260
Limestone 1339

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

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

You saw that it took them 7 days to move about 2 inches, right?

And their "working patches" looked pretty different from the ones actually visible on the giant obelisk.

How many years is this pharaoh going to be willing to wait for one stele?

The main problem I see is that rulers usually like to show how powerful they are. They don't like to build things that take 100,000 man hours, but only look like they should have taken 10,000. Because that means their power over 100,000 people only looks like power over 10,000.

If possible, they prefer to do it the other way: take their power over 10,000 slaves, and make it look like power over 100,000 slaves.

originally posted by: Byrd

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.

It still required labor to bring those crops in.

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.

Fixing them isn't really the problem. The problem is that a 2 foot wide blade is going to be gradually getting thinner and thinner.

Eventually you've just got to start over with a new blade.

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.

Neither of us doubt they had enough labor to resharpen/reforge saws.

The question is: did they have enough copper?

When the blade wears, it wears off in tiny little grains that mix in with the rock dust. Grains you are not likely going to be able to recover.

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.

If what you saw is what is seen in the aforementioned video then no: you didn't.

Those marks are clearly different.

He'd probably be waiting a long time if he hired two old egyptologists and a couple of locals.
It's proof of concept, and I only posted it because you were pretending not to know how pounders work.

You mean how they don't work, right?

If the pharoah was using convicted criminals, as Byrd has suggested, then the level of professionalism ought to be about the same.

If he was using skilled workers, he wouldn't make them slave like that in the heat. (Just imagine how much water he's having to get hauled to the site, just to keep the workers from dying of heat exhaustion.)

You did see where I mentioned using fire, didn't you? Did you see them build any fires on their granite?

Harte

It's in interesting possibility, since it was demonstrated to work, but there are two problems:

1 - Wood was scarce in Egypt. (But admittedly not too much for it to be possible.)

2- Fire used on site, would leave charcoal behind.

If someone were to sift through the extracted gravel/sand/powder - wherever it was moved to, and found charcoal in it, that would settle the matter.

Indeed, it would put many outspoken critics to shame.

originally posted by: Hanslune

When the blade wears, it wears off in tiny little grains that mix in with the rock dust. Grains you are not likely going to be able to recover.

Place in crucibles - heat, copper melts stone doesn't - pour off

Copper melts at 1,085
Bronze at 950
Granite at 1260
Limestone 1339

If you did that, the copper would probably absorb so many impurities that it would end up being useless.

If you did that, the copper would probably absorb so many impurities that it would end up being useless.

Still desperately trying to keep the idea alive huh? lol

No that wouldn't happen - look up how smelting works please. However, I'm open minded please show us a paper that states that ancient's couldn't do this for that reason. We'll wait.

originally posted by: Hanslune

If you did that, the copper would probably absorb so many impurities that it would end up being useless.

Still desperately trying to keep the idea alive huh? lol

It's still interesting at this point. And sometimes when you follow one line of investigation, you stumble onto another that ends up being better. So I'm keeping an open mind.


The use of plain old fire that you mentioned earlier makes for an interesting possibility. Just have to figure out what form of fuel it was using that doesn't leave ash behind, or whether they used a different heat source.


Pounders, on the other hand, look more improbable than ever, now that I watched the video you posted. Not unless they had a method of using them that differs substantially from the one attempted in the video.

No that wouldn't happen - look up how smelting works please. However, I'm open minded please show us a paper that states that ancient's couldn't do this for that reason. We'll wait.

It's just that copper smelting was usually not done using inferior ores to begin with. They would hand pick the best ores. Do reforging from dust just doesn't seem very likely.

www.copper.org...

If I mix dust into water, I'm not going to get pure water. So I'm having a hard time how mixing dust into molten copper would lead to pure copper. What would cause the dust to separate?

I guess you require no ash so that you can deny it was used by the absence of ash?
The answer is wind, you know.

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

If I mix dust into water, I'm not going to get pure water. So I'm having a hard time how mixing dust into molten copper would lead to pure copper. What would cause the dust to separate?

Flux; en.wikipedia.org...(metallurgy)

www.e-education.psu.edu... Malachite and azurite were used as a source ore for the copper, charcoal was used as the reducing agent to separate oxygen from the copper, and iron ore was used as the ‘flux’ to bind and float away impurities.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


If I mix dust into water, I'm not going to get pure water. So I'm having a hard time how mixing dust into molten copper would lead to pure copper. What would cause the dust to separate?

What? BM, you'd have after a day of hard work a pile of stone dust and bits of copper from your saw. You gather that up.

Put it in a crucible and heat it up. The copper MELTS, the stone doesn't, pour off the copper....It isn't complicated and no your personal dislike of the idea doesn't make a standard smelting technique suddenly not work after thousands of years..lol

Oh and pounders work and were used by all ancient civilizations. Your personal incredulity doesn't invalidate their use.

Regards Hanslune

Edited to add ah, I see another fine fellow has provided an even more technical explanation thanks Mike

Who ever built the ancient structures had power tools, but Specialist tools. As in they weren't overly popular like a hand drill but more like a tunnel boring machine. Everyone doesn't have a tunnel boring machine sitting in their back yard and it's almost like a mini factory setup on sight. In like fashion once it's job is done you wouldn't leave it just lying around.

This ties in with the fact why you would not find remnants of said devices lying around as they would be pieces of a greater device which over time of course would of been salvaged for jewelry or ornaments over 1000s of years simply to the point of " vanishing ". The Sphinx itself was around at lease near the end of the Ice Age so about 10000 yrs +. What are the chances of finding one of our Tunnel boring machines in 10 000 yrs ? I'd say quite low as they are disassembled after use. You may find a tooth of the cutting face maybe but that it one tiny miss identifiable artifact.

To corroborate these claims:






You can see the striations of the drill teeth in this one







Skip to 7:00 minute Mark

a reply to: TheKestrel04

On the subject of specialist ancient tools, you might find this and this of interest.

originally posted by: TheKestrel04
Who ever built the ancient structures had power tools, but Specialist tools. As in they weren't overly popular like a hand drill but more like a tunnel boring machine. Everyone doesn't have a tunnel boring machine sitting in their back yard and it's almost like a mini factory setup on sight. In like fashion once it's job is done you wouldn't leave it just lying around.

So where is the culture or civilization that some how built such a device? How did they come through an industrial development phase and yet left no sign of their existence?

This ties in with the fact why you would not find remnants of said devices lying around as they would be pieces of a greater device which over time of course would of been salvaged for jewelry or ornaments over 1000s of years simply to the point of " vanishing ".

A technologically advance civilization would have left extensive traces - mines, slag and use of resources - no such exist but at the same time in Egypt we can find significant evidence of stone age people making stone tools, building villages and habitations but not one sign of this more advanced civilization you believe existed and was making 'tunnel boring machines'.

The Sphinx itself was around at lease near the end of the Ice Age so about 10000 yrs +.

Unfortunately no such evidence exist, you are can certainly believe that but it is an article of faith and not based on evidence.

What are the chances of finding one of our Tunnel boring machines in 10 000 yrs ?

Poor but the evidence of the industrial society that created it and the lead up to that level of technology would be massive and extensive - as is our own industrial development has left unmistakable sign of it having occurred.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: TheKestrel04
Who ever built the ancient structures had power tools, but Specialist tools. As in they weren't overly popular like a hand drill but more like a tunnel boring machine. Everyone doesn't have a tunnel boring machine sitting in their back yard and it's almost like a mini factory setup on sight. In like fashion once it's job is done you wouldn't leave it just lying around.

So where is the culture or civilization that some how built such a device? How did they come through an industrial development phase and yet left no sign of their existence?

This ties in with the fact why you would not find remnants of said devices lying around as they would be pieces of a greater device which over time of course would of been salvaged for jewelry or ornaments over 1000s of years simply to the point of " vanishing ".

A technologically advance civilization would have left extensive traces - mines, slag and use of resources - no such exist but at the same time in Egypt we can find significant evidence of stone age people making stone tools, building villages and habitations but not one sign of this more advanced civilization you believe existed and was making 'tunnel boring machines'.

The Sphinx itself was around at lease near the end of the Ice Age so about 10000 yrs +.

Unfortunately no such evidence exist, you are can certainly believe that but it is an article of faith and not based on evidence.

What are the chances of finding one of our Tunnel boring machines in 10 000 yrs ?

Poor but the evidence of the industrial society that created it and the lead up to that level of technology would be massive and extensive - as is our own industrial development has left unmistakable sign of it having occurred.

The builders came from off-world (not quite but technically yes), most Ancient Civilizations speak of those who came from Above ( aka Space,Heaven) this is a fact and interacted with humans at one time. They were most likely a pre-Ice Age civilization who fled to heavens and returned who then figured to rule over surviving man as gods ( < _ < ). If you look very carefully there is a part in genesis where the Judeo Christian God says," Let US make man in our own image ".

This is the general jist I get from most ancient tales but more would need to be know to clear up the confusion. Basically the builders arrived here or weren't here for a long time prior. Then there was a global flood involved.

If you look at it from a technical perspective it makes sense settlers from somewhere else would use the most immediate abundant material to them to construct bases, which is stone and transporting that amount of material across space to here is tedious and inefficient.

If we colonized Mars it would be easier to carve caves out of Martian rock than to transport cement and steel from earth for example. There is what appears to be water erosion of the bedrock (as it was carved from bedrock) around the Sphinx indicating it was there during times of significant water which wound of been over 10,000s yrs prior.

No one should underestimate the force of nature, most civilizations dating to around the end of the Ice age would of been by the seaside as we today have mostly coastal cities. It permits easier trade and alternative access to sea based foods. Once again many spoke of the a Great Flood ( like sea levels rising etc) which occurred pretty much around the end of the recent Ice Age ( with 2 mile high ice sheets ) when the ice sheets melted. Many Coastal cities would of been flooded some known, some lost to history of man because people simply forgot or no one survived to tell the tale. That in itself would of buried quite a bit of evidence along with the reform of the surviving cities. Looking beneath our oceans could reveal more if we are even allowed to known what is found because it may not fit the narrative.

There are lots of temples ( and to be honest every building is not a temple archeologist call them that) in India highly crafted and South America reclaimed by nature and one of the biggest things to search through is nature reclamation. If it's bad on land it's worse in the oceans as those structures would be covered in coral.






Go to time stamp 4:22

originally posted by: TheKestrel04

The builders came from off-world (not quite but technically yes), most Ancient Civilizations speak of those who came from Above ( aka Space,Heaven) this is a fact and interacted with humans at one time. They were most likely a pre-Ice Age civilization who fled to heavens and returned who then figured to rule over surviving man as gods ( < _ < ). If you look very carefully there is a part in genesis where the Judeo Christian God says," Let US make man in our own image ".

All ancient civilizations and cultures had some sort of religion and most had 'gods' coming out of sky, even modern religion do that its not about aliens. There is a general held idea that heaven is up and corruption and death is down.

The full quote is: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

If you look at the original language it is not a plural us but a singular.

This is the general jist I get from most ancient tales but more would need to be know to clear up the confusion. Basically the builders arrived here or weren't here for a long time prior. Then there was a global flood involved.

No biblical Global flood. To make a viable a 'Aliens did it' theory you need to NOT rely on the Bible which is full of errors and grave scientific oops.

If you look at it from a technical perspective it makes sense settlers from somewhere else would use the most immediate abundant material to them to construct bases, which is stone and transporting that amount of material across space to here is tedious and inefficient.

They'd use concrete or rammed earth not bash out limestone with rocks (and yes that is what the marks on the stones themselves and the quarters show).

If we colonized Mars it would be easier to carve caves out of Martian rock than to transport cement and steel from earth for example.

We wouldn't haul it from earth we'd make it there. Yes we would probably use existing Martian lava tubes and tunnels and not built massive limestone pyramids with no useful internal compartments.

There is what appears to be water erosion of the bedrock (as it was carved from bedrock) around the Sphinx indicating it was there during times of significant water which wound of been over 10,000s yrs prior.

That is Schoch's idea unfortunately other geologist don't support his contention. www.robertschoch.com... One guys idea doesn't over turn consensus.

No one should underestimate the force of nature, most civilizations dating to around the end of the Ice age would of been by the seaside as we today have mostly coastal cities.

No that is a Hancock idea that he made up. Civilizations (that we have found] set up on rivers for the source of water. The rise in sea levels was very slow and people would have been capable to simply moving inland they didn't. There are no extensive ruins at the Ice age water levels. Nor are there signs that these folks did anything inland.

It permits easier trade and alternative access to sea based foods.

Yet no evidence exists that this happened, however there are tens of millions of pieces of evidence for river borne civilizations.

Once again many spoke of the a Great Flood ( like sea levels rising etc) which occurred pretty much around the end of the recent Ice Age ( with 2 mile high ice sheets ) when the ice sheets melted.

Local floods are a common occurrence and no global flood.

Many Coastal cities would of been flooded some known, some lost to history of man because people simply forgot or no one survived to tell the tale. That in itself would of buried quite a bit of evidence along with the reform of the surviving cities. Looking beneath our oceans could reveal more if we are even allowed to known what is found because it may not fit the narrative.

"Narrative" lol. Sorry the narrative as you call it is made up of what we are able to find - it changes constantly and has changed drastically over the last two centuries.

There are lots of temples ( and to be honest every building is not a temple archeologist call them that) in India highly crafted and South America reclaimed by nature and one of the biggest things to search through is nature reclamation. If it's bad on land it's worse in the oceans as those structures would be covered in coral.

Not all seas produce coral and coral doesn't form at the depths the ice age sea coasts were at. You can see coral forming and dying as sea level rise and fall.

Civilizations leave immense amounts of waste and they do that too as cultures so you have people in the same area for tens of thousands of years - that would leave traces - and we find those traces but they don't point to and advance civilization - what I call the invisible civilization anywhere on earth.





Removed vid left from earlier poster

originally posted by: TheKestrel04

Go to time stamp 4:22

There are architectural details from Dwarka that prove it was above water during the Medieval Period.

Harte

They likely used high tech not drills and saws or similar.

An interesting find

That there were lathes in Iron Age India is already known. Several temple columns were turned on lathes then decoratively carved.

Harte