 |
|
|
|
Ian, Please don't think I have ever doubted your intelligence, Ian. If anyone can recognize intelligence, I can. I have a great respect for intelligence. I sometimes wish I could exercise more of it myself. (And I'm still smarting over the invitation to leave my local Mensa group so that I didn't dilute the gene pool.) ;<) I understand you are not a trained engineer, though, from what you wrote in your previous posts, I didn't realize that you understood that feeding while rotating was necessary to achieve cutting when drilling. A simple misunderstanding on my part, I'm sure. Your statement, "you have now amended your explanation of the supposed spiral grooves to suggest that the feedrate was "greater" rather than "faster", and that you do not think the drill bit was rotating rapidly (whichever method was used)," totally misrepresents my position. I have not amended my original thinking on the subject of feedrate or what I intended to say. I have rephrased my explanation not amended it. I never did think that the drill was rotating rapidly, and if you would go back and read chapter four in The Giza Power Plant: Technologies of Ancient Egypt, you will find that what you describe as a recent amendment, was, in fact, rephrased and published over a year ago. With respect to the rest of your post, I am happy to respond with my report on my research at the Petrie Museum University College London [see below]. Chris [The following is an abbreviated version of Chris Dunn's Report of his and Nick Annie's visit to the Petrie Museum to inspect drill core No. 7 on 15 Nov 1999; for the full report and photos see http://www.gizapower.com/petrie/chris5.htm] … Before going to London, I had a long conversation with Roger Hopkins, the stone mason who appeared with Mark Lehner on 'This Old Pyramid' and 'Obelisk.' He told me that another Obelisk documentary was produced this year in which Dennis Stocks, a master stone mason, demonstrates core drilling in granite using a copper tube, sand, and manpower - a method that is accepted by Egyptologists as the true method the ancient Egyptians used. Though Roger was initially supportive of my ultrasonic drilling theory, he tempered his original enthusiasm by stating that, while he and Stocks disagreed as to the methods of drilling the rock, he was convinced that it could be done using primitive methods. Other characteristics of Egyptian granite artifacts that we discussed I will address later. Roger told me that the film is in the can, but I couldn't get any details of what kind of core was produced, except that it is similar to Petrie's core. A recent posting to the Atlantis Rising forum on Gizapower by Mikey Brass states that Stocks had produced such a core, but I am still waiting for details about what kind of grooves were produced in it using his methods. … Then it came time to inspect the infamous core #7. Although I had talked and written about this core for over 15 years, this was not a reverent visit to a holy relic that one might expect. I was not especially breathless with excitement to take the artifact into my latex-gloved hands. Nor was I impressed with its size or character. To tell the truth I was profoundly unmoved and disappointed. With the old Peggy Lee song "Is That All There Is?" bouncing around in my head, I peered at this insignificant looking piece of rock which had fuelled such a heated debate on the Internet and in living rooms and pubs across the globe. I was thinking to myself as I looked at the rough grooves on its surface, "How do I make sense of this?" And, "What was Petrie thinking about? … Not a word passed between us as I formulated in my mind my ultimate confession to the world. I had made a huge mistake in trusting Petrie's writings! The core appeared to be exactly as Reid and Brownlee described it! The grooves did not appear to have any remote resemblance to what Petrie described. … I first checked the width between the grooves using the microscope. At this point I was certain that Petrie was totally wrong in his evaluation of the piece. The distance between the grooves, which are scoured into the core along the entire length, was .040 - .080 inch. I was devastated that Petrie even got the distance between the grooves wrong! Any further measurement, I thought, would be just perfunctory. I couldn't support any theory of advanced machining if Petrie's dimensions of .100 inch feedrate cannot be verified! Nevertheless, I continued with my examination. The crystalline structure of the core under microscope was beyond my ability to evaluate. I could not determine as surely as Petrie did that the groove ran deeper through the quartz than the feldspar. I did notice that there were some regions, very few, where the biotite (black mica) appeared to be ripped from the feldspar in a way that is similar to other artifacts found in Egypt. However, the groove passed through other areas quite cleanly without any such ripping effect. Though again, I support Brownlee's assertions that a cutting force against the material could rip the crystals from the feldspar substrate. I then measured the depth of the grooves … [which were between] .002 and .005 inch. (Actually, because there were clearly discontinuities in the groove at some locations around the core, the actual measurement would be between .000 and .005 inch). Then came the great question. Was the groove a helix or a horizontal ring around the core? I had deferred to Reid and Brownlee's assertions that they were horizontal and I was, at this juncture, painfully assured that it was the correct thing to do. It was Petrie's description of the helical groove that made Core #7 stand apart from modern cores. It was one of the principle characteristics upon which I based my theory of ultrasonic machining. But what I held in my hand seemed to support Reid and Brownlee's objections to this theory, for they said that the core had a similar appearance to any other core one may produce in a quarry. I had rejected my initial plan to fixture the core and rotate it around its central axis to check for a helix. The fixture would have taken time and material to make and, though I had a willing toolmaker, Gary Bryant, to manufacture the fixture, I had opted for a cheaper, more primitive, though equally effective, method. The white cotton thread was the perfect choice to inspect for a helical groove. Why not use a thread to check a thread! I carefully placed one end of the thread in a groove while Nick secured it with a piece of Scotch tape. While I peered through my 10 X Optivisor, I rotated the core in my left hand, making sure the thread stayed in the groove with my right. The groove varied in depth as it circled the core, and at some points there was just a faint scratch that I would probably not have detected with my naked eye. As the other end of the thread came into view, I could see that what Petrie had described about this core was not quite correct. Petrie had described a single helical groove that had a pitch of .100 inch. What I was looking at was not a single helical groove, but two helical grooves. The thread wound around the core following the groove until it lay approximately .110 inch above the start of the thread. Amazingly, though, there was another groove that nestled neatly in between! I repeated the test at about 7 different locations on the core with the same results. The grooves were cut clockwise looking down the small end to the large - which would be the top to bottom. In uniformity, the grooves were as deep at the top of the core as they were at the bottom. They were also as uniform in pitch at the top and bottom, with sections of the groove clearly seen right to the point where the core granite was broken out of the hole. These are NOT horizontal striations or rings as trumpeted in Giza: The Truth, but helical grooves that spiralled down the core like a double-start thread. Petrie is vindicated. To say I am happy about that would be an understatement. To replicate this core, therefore, the drilling method should produce the following.
It seems ironic to me that while Reid and Brownlee were insisting that these grooves were horizontal rings, they were also suggesting a theory if it was found that the groove was spiral. Why would they do that? If the grooves were as their expert testimony claimed them to be, why bother coming up with another theory in case they were not? Could it be that they came to their conclusions after examining only a photograph? Perhaps they will be forthcoming with more details of their methods and instruments for inspecting the core in subsequent posts. With respect to Reid and Brownlee's "fall-back" argument for the creation of the "in-case-they-really-ARE-spiral" grooves, it does not survive a simple test to see if it lies in the realm of physical possibility. Certainly scratches could be made along the cores and hole as a rotating tube-drill was being removed while it was spinning, but not to the depth of .005 inch! Their theory of slap in the bearings, which allowed a spinning tool to cut the groove, is a theory that collapses under close scrutiny. Let me explain the last step in my research to date. I walked out to the toolroom last week and talked to a toolmaker, Don Reynolds, who was working on a surface grinder. I asked him if he had a sharp diamond wheel dresser. (These are used to dress carborundum and other types of grinding wheels.) He had one that was barely used with a nice sharp point. (These industrial diamonds are set into a steel shank, which are then fixtured so as to sit on a magnetic chuck.) I asked him how deep a groove he thought he could scratch into a piece of granite with the diamond. He said, "Let's find out!" We walked over to a granite surface plate while I jokingly admonished him not to try it on the work surface. He pressed the diamond point into the side of the plate. Bearing down with all the weight he could throw behind it, he scoured the side of the plate with a scratch about 4 inches long. We both felt the scratch. "How deep would you say that is?" I asked. "Oh, between .003 - .005 inch." He said. "Let's check it out then!" I said. Don fixtured an indicator (clock) gauge in a surface gauge and zeroed the fine needle point on the surface. As he passed it over the groove, the point dropped into the groove and the dial read only .001 inch. Why am I telling you this?
With respect to Reid and Brownlee's assertions that the grooves were not spiral. They have been proven wrong. I am happy that Petrie is vindicated, but I find it shameful that his meticulous research was contradicted to further the agenda of the orthodox church. In my view, Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald have succumbed to some forceful arguments against the advanced machining theory and have accepted them uncritically because they lack the expertise and experience to formulate their own educated opinion. This is not the balanced treatment they claim to have taken. If it were my agenda to discredit a theory such as mine, I would probably seek out my own experts and charge them with the responsibility of doing their own analysis. I would select the weakest argument where the evidence is second-hand. Of course, I would tell them why I was sending them on this errand, and I might interject my own beliefs regarding the subject. Armed with such prejudice, it is easy to be wrong on such an artifact if you are only studying a photograph or image on a computer screen - or just holding it in your hands not believing such a spiral exists in the first place. Ogilvie-Herald and Lawton most likely took Reid and Brownlee's report with satisfaction and had every reason to believe them because what they saw on their computer screens, supported their mission in writing their book. But, as my Father used to say, "Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see!" Chris PS I will address Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald's treatment of the power plant theory in future posts. (As long as I don't have to travel across the world this time.) |