It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Read the information provided to you again. When did I say that the iron is using nanotechnology? I said the steel was using nanotechology. I even separated the two in my summary.
What the readers here will see, as well as in the other topic, you are not reading anything people are providing you when you ask for evidence. You will lost credibility very quickly.
Hans: It isn’t ‘pure; iron your own source so states. It has impurities - or do you deny your own source?
Legends of Wootz steel and Damascus sword aroused the curiosity of the European scientific community from the 17th to the 19th Century. The use of high carbon alloys were not known in Europe previously and thus the research into Wootz steel played an important role in the development of modern English, French and Russian metallurgy.[7]
[edit] Western research
The British Occupation in the 1750s gave a fresh impetus into this research. By 1790, samples of wootz steel were received by Sir Joseph Banks, President of the British Royal society. These samples were subjected to scientic examination and analysis by several experts.[8][9]
Wootz was possibly rediscovered in the mid 19th century by the Russian metallurgist Pavel Petrovich Anosov (see Bulat steel), who refused to reveal the secret of its manufacture other than to write five one-sentence descriptions of different ways in which it could be made.
Master bladesmith Alfred Pendray re-discovered what may be the classic techniques in the early 1980s, as later verified by Dr. John Verhoeven. [10][11]
Another method of wootz production, using modern technology, was developed around 1980 by Dr. Oleg Sherby and Dr. Jeff Wadsworth at Stanford University and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Even though this steel had the charactertistic bands of microcarbides, whether or not this could be considered wootz was disputed by Verhoeven since it was not made in a classical manner.
Recently, researcher Peter Paufler from Dresden University of Technology in Germany has discovered evidence of carbon nanotubes in Wootz steel[12]
Normally, if somebody reads about something such as an iron pillar that is 1600 years old that has barely rusted one does not dismiss something like this.
However, perhaps you cannot appreciate that a corrosion proof almost pure iron is practically impossible with normal iron technology, and no other metals even stainles steel can endure that long.
So rightfully the Metallurgists have been fascinated with this pillar, which all you have done is dismissed belying your ignorance which is not shared by metallurgical experts.
Your argument that it was forge-welded is a straw man.
I never said it wasn’t forge-welded. I am referring to the actual corrosion proof technology which the expert himself admits is post-21st century.
Mystery or not, the Delhi Iron Pillar serves as a guidepost for metallurgists in the 21st century and beyond, asserts Balasubramaniam. In fact, just as a seminar at RPI inspired him to study the pillar, he hopes that his research will motivate others to explore the potential uses of phosphorus-containing iron.
Your argument that it uses nanotechnology is another strawman and clearly shows you did not read what I said to you in the previous post. I will repeat: That I was not claiming it used nanotechnology. I said the wootz steel used nanotechnology
In late 2006, a group of scientists headed by Peter Paufler found direct evidence of nanotubes and nanowires in a sample of a 17th century sword forged from Damascus steel. The complex process of forging and annealing is thought to have accounted for the nano-scale structures
I obviously did and I read the chemical composition it is 98% pure iron with other metals mixed in it, some if you read the experts commentary are deliberately mixed in to give its corrosion proof technology.
I would like to see how you can spin this.
An advanced form of steel is being manufactured in India in around 500BCE(conservative dates). No such steel ever appears again and not until the 21st century is its secret discovered.
You demanded evidence of advanced material. This is a post-21st century material.
Also bear in steel production in general did not take place until modern times. There was only one place that was manufacturing steel of a grade still unmatched, the Sanskrit metallurgical tradition.
If that doesn’t make you sit up and take notice, along with the computer science, formal language, mathematical linguistics and microbiology, then it is easy for everyone to see you have firmly shut your mind on this.
Most people would think, “Damn really, they had nanotech steel in ancient times, they classified microrganims, they did plastic surgery and brain surgery, they used computer theory! Woah” Most rational people that is.
According to Will Durant (The Story of Civilization I: Our Oriental Heritage), the secret of manufacturing Damascus steel was learned by the Arabs from the Persians, and by the Persians from India and Sri Lanka. It is further believed that the people of the Indian subcontinent learned the techniques from the Chinese.
"When it was discovered in 1922, the tomb contained more gold than the Royal Bank of Egypt at the time. Tutankhamen had with him a truly royal weapon: an iron dagger with a hilt and sheath of gold decorated with rock crystal. The dagger blade had not rusted in more than 3000 years, and we do not know how it was forged. A set of 16 small iron chisels was also buried with the king. This gives some idea of the value of iron at the time.
After 33 centuries in the tomb, the blade was found to be as bright as steel. Overall length is 13.5 inches. The haft is made of gold with granulated design and bands of inlaid glass and semi-precious stones. The pommel is shaped from a piece of sparkling rock crystal
Hans: Ah Indigo you just admitted in the line above that it rusts, so how did it make the U-turn back to corrosion proof? Sure other metals can last that long – or we wouldn’t find any would we? Are you stating that no metal objects exists that are older than 1,600 years? Quite a silly claim by you I must admit!
Hans: you said it was made by nanotechnology
Care to explain Thomas why we find stuff from the past? If there is nothing to find ..what is the big picture? LOL
You seem to be arguing that the lack of evidence for ancient unknown civilization is proof they exist? If you don't have evidence how do you know they exist?
Without evidence the best you can do is speculate and speculation is not evidence for existence.
Do fossils oxidize?
Originally posted by thomas_
Everything in nature can mutate in a chemical level under the right conditions. So again this argument of that "x stuff would remain" it's just talk from people that don't want to see the big picture.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
There is in fact Xtrozero again within the Sanskrit tradition, which I am keep telling people to take more seriously because it is more evidence rich than any other tradition or any myth of Atlantis etc. There is hard evidence for it(advanced materials) and soft evidence for it(advanced knowledge)
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You’ve required three clarifications on this. I said the wootz steel uses nanotechnology and that is indeed how articles have described it. I never made any claims of how they did it, whether it is naturally occurring or not.
All I said was that it had carbon nanotubes confirmed by the researcher
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You’ve required three clarifications on this. I said the wootz steel uses nanotechnology and that is indeed how articles have described it. I never made any claims of how they did it, whether it is naturally occurring or not.
Nanotechnology is the engineering of functional systems at the molecular scale. This covers both current work and concepts that are more advanced.
In its original sense, 'nanotechnology' refers to the projected ability to construct items from the bottom up, using techniques and tools being developed today to make complete, high performance products.
Advanced materials did exist in ancient times.
But I do concede and I maintained this from the start that I do not think any of the archaeological or physical evidence is strong, but it does give food for thought. The real evidence is the soft evidence.
I was merely responding with the iron-pillar evidence because the poster specifically asked for corrosion-proof metals.
I am waiting for your evidence for any other kind of metal outside the Sanskrit tradition that is 1600 years old or more and has barely rusted. By the way I had to laugh at your dagger
I said the wootz steel uses nanotechnology and that is indeed how articles have described it. I never made any claims of how they did it, whether it is naturally occurring or not.
All I said was that it had carbon nanotubes confirmed by the researcher
Summary:
* Nanotechnology steel
* Corrosion-proof iron
* Zinc
Actually the techniques they used to make the steel is now known as the crucible technique which was not reinvented until the 18th century.
Simple we find them because we've looked. Since we haven't looked every square feet on this earth how can you say there is nothing to be found?
I'm not arguing anything like that. I'm just not neglecting the fact that they might have existed.
All I'm saying is that scientists, archeologists and we as a whole should recognize that any of us have all the pieces of the puzzle figure out yet. And we probably won't ever have. So discarding possibilities is just being stupid.
Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Actually the techniques they used to make the steel is now known as the crucible technique which was not reinvented until the 18th century. In the article I produced above it clearly mentions how Modern western metallurgists extensively studied Indian metallurgy to manufacture both steel and zinc.
The truth is what we call modern is itself derived from the Sanskrit tradition and we still have not reached their standard of science. In modern language a lot of our taking from the Sanskrit tradition without explicit credit would be calld plagiarism.
As I said, making steel was an art, and reinventing it was only for the sole purpose to understand the art of wootz steel. That steel has not been used for anything, or replaced anything we use today or 100s and 100s of years ago. Steel is the most basic combination of metals and carbon. They hit on a good recipe of 500 years of trial and error….nice. I’m not sure your point in all this. If your point was to say that they should be credited with advancements that they did first I agree with you. If you suggest they were more advance in 500BC than the west was in 1500 AD I will need to disagree.
This is where I think you are failing in your debate, to say "we still have not reached their standard of science" might seem to you that it pushes your point in a strong direction, but it really just kills it.
lets play a game...
You name one thing we cannot do today that they did, and I'll name one million things we can do today that they didn't have a clue about. I think you will loose this game....
In the past twenty years, much time, effort, and money has been expended on designing an unambiguous representation of natural languages to make them accessible to computer processing. These efforts have centered around creating schemata designed to parallel logical relations with relations expressed by the syntax and semantics of natural languages, which are clearly cumbersome and ambiguous in their function as vehicles for the transmission of logical data. Understandably, there is a widespread belief that natural languages are unsuitable for the transmission of many ideas that artificial languages can render with great precision and mathematical rigor.
But this dichotomy, which has served as a premise underlying much work in the areas of linguistics and artificial intelligence, is a false one. There is at least one language, Sanskrit, which for the duration of almost 1,000 years was a living spoken language with a considerable literature of its own. Besides works of literary value, there was a long philosophical and grammatical tradition that has continued to exist with undiminished vigor until the present century. Among the accomplishments of the grammarians can be reckoned a method for paraphrasing Sanskrit in a manner that is identical not only in essence but in form with current work in Artificial Intelligence. This article demonstrates that a natural language can serve as an artificial language also, and that much work in AI has been reinventing a wheel millenia old.
The enterprise of computer science has two fundamental elements. The element is to develop techniques that make the elucidation of the computational structure of nature and the mind easier. The second element is the creation of new computing algorithms and machines that have powerful cognitive and computational abilities: this includes development of new techniques of representing and manipulating knowledge, inference and deduction. The tasks of representing and processing knowledge with a somewhat different emphasis has parallels in many ancient disciplines. Thus grammarians have long considered questions of relating facts about the physical world and
cognition to linguistic expressions. Likewise logicians have developed formal structures to relate events and draw inferences from them. This is seen best in the work of ancient Indian logicians and grammarians. It has been argued by Ingalls, Staal, Matilal, Briggs, Kak and others1 that many contemporary developments in formal logic, linguistics, and computer science are a rediscovery of the work of these ancient masters. But apart from the question of a correct history of ideas it raises the following important question of significance to Sanskritists as well as cognitive and computer scientists: Are there other rules in ancient Indian logic and grammar that may be of use in making further advance in cognitive and computer sciences?
So I will politely ask you not to respond to any of my posts so we can keep peace.