What books are you reading ? (conspiracy related, science, etc...)
- Thread starter Leifer
- Start date
Nemon
Senior Member
My last two complete books had ancient Egyptian themes:
Frank Müller-Römer "Der Bau der Pyramiden im Alten Ägypten", a standard work on the construction methods for the pyramids, whose thesis I consider to be the most convincing. Ditto Armin Wirsching's work on the erection and transportation of the great obelisks in Egypt and Rome. I also find his theses very convincing.
The currently discussed Italian pyramid book will not be included here
Otherwise, in recent years it has been mainly been scientific studies and articles.
Frank Müller-Römer "Der Bau der Pyramiden im Alten Ägypten", a standard work on the construction methods for the pyramids, whose thesis I consider to be the most convincing. Ditto Armin Wirsching's work on the erection and transportation of the great obelisks in Egypt and Rome. I also find his theses very convincing.
The currently discussed Italian pyramid book will not be included here
Otherwise, in recent years it has been mainly been scientific studies and articles.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
What's her take on it? Puthoff & Targ with Geller and Swan in the '70s, General "Stubby", and then May in the '90s all contributed to what became known as Stargate. It was canceled and declassified in the '90s. None of the research conducted by any of them has ever held up to scrutiny or peer review.
Jacobsen takes some weird tacks sometimes. I read her book Area 51, which seemed a fairly factual history of the base, the U2, the A12 and other secret aircraft, as well as the potential coverup of nuclear waste and contamination. The she went completely bonkers, claiming that the Nazi Dr. Mengale created grotesque little dwarf like humans to pilot mini-flying saucers. Supposedly the Soviets got a hold of these lil' fellas and the saucers and used them to terrorize the US, including one mini-me piloted flying saucer that crashed at Roswell. Huh?
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Meanwhile, here's a non-standard take that I do not consider to be at all convincing, but for obvious reasons I wish were true...
There's a book, which is on my "to read" list,but the list is long so don't know when I'll get to it...
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Seriously? I know you love your kites, but really? Are they insinuating that something like your diagram would actually work?
You know better than anyone JMart, how much could a large kite actually lift in terms of weight? According to the Amazon book blurb, quite a bit:
The blurb also makes her sound very inspirational:External Quote:
But it also invokes the Galileo excuse:External Quote:
https://www.amazon.com/Soaring-Stones-Kite-Powered-Approach-Building/External Quote:
Guess will have to track down the History Channel show and give this its own thread.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Considering how many laborious man-hours it took to cut a stone, it seems unlikely that they would risk its safety to a technique that could easily send it crashing down with such a simple and unpredictable thing as the wind suddenly dropping.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
It's a serious proposal, I do not think it would work with anything that could be built before the invention of ripstop nylon and extremely strong fibers for rope. But as I said, I have not read their book yet, perhaps they can make a case. My main objection, though, is "Where are the carved and painted illustrations of the technique? We have representations of the "line up a zillion guys to pull on ropes and have one or two guys to poor fat or water or something in front of the big rock" method...
I'd have to go ask some questions, a kite genius in NZ did some experiments on that at one point, and the answer was "an impressively large amount" but I don't recall the specifics of how big a kite (designed for maximum lift) and how big a weight was lifted.
But for most folks, what we want is a large kite that will NOT lift too much, as we don't want to get lofted (it is a way to get injured or killed when you fall back down!) and we don't want to have to use excessively big anchors -- so big kites are mostly engineered to minimize lift and drag, down to where they are reasonably safe to fly. Even with that, when flying what was then in a three-way tie for "world's biggest kite," I had my Chevy Astro van tied in to a stabilizing line, not the line getting the main pull (that was tied into a dump truck)and it slid the van across the ground like it was nothing when the wind shifted (so drag rather than lift, but then this kite was engineered to be massively underpowered for its size.) I've been lofted once by a stack of just normal large kites and was lucky enough to lose my grip or reflexively let go before I was more than about 7 or 8 feet off the ground. I was present when a friend was fooling around with a very large kite for the media, got careless, and went up maybe 15-20 feet before falling to the sand. Fortunately he was not seriously injured, but he spent the rest of the festival in a wheelchair with a busted knee, on some apparently quite enjoyable pain meds...
I'll reach out to Peter and see if I can get data on the lifting experiments they did.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Got a reply on lifting with kites. As my corespondent has not yet agreed to be identified, I'll anonymize it a bit, I can renew the request if it becomes important, but this should be sufficient for just an informal discussion:
Yes we made a heavy lift kite for (a client)
...
It's a single skin.(1)
I don't recall what it eventually lifted, (other folks that I am asking for more info) probably know- there was an attempt in Kuwait I think.
... A 4 sq.m(2) easily lifts 100kg in a stiffish breeze, a 16sq.m more than 500kg I'm sure ... The 16s are stable in every wind I've flown them in so far and have certainly endured gusts above 70km/hr, at which wind speed I just keep out of the way in case of line breakage, not silly enough to measure pull. I think I could make one big enough to do 5 tonne or so (lift not pull, they have very high
L/D(3) for a single line kite) without pushing fabric strength or budget limits.
(1) Most large stickless kites are "double skinned,"that is, there is a top and bottom layer of fabric sewn around the edges to form a "bag" that the wind inflates to give the kites their aerodynamic shape. Single skinned soft kites are trickier to design/make and keep in tune to fly well, but are lighter weight and can pull like a dang truck! Here's a pic corespondent included of one of the lifting kites being test-flown...
(2) We're now talking about a different design developed later, shaped like a big manta ray or stingray:
(3) Lift/drag. Show fliers prefer both forces be kept pretty small, with the exception of a few "top of a stack" kites that help lift the others in lighter winds. (Big show kites are often flown in a stack, to squeeze as much show as possible into limited field space.) For a kite designed specifically to lift weight, you of course would want as much energy as possible going into the UP vector. and as little as possible be wasted in the horizontal down-wind vector. If you just wanted to drag your pyramid rock across the ground, you'd want more drag and not necessarily as much lift.
It should be noted that these kites are made with modern materials and knowledge of aerodynamics. Given the lack of such advantages, I doubt strenuously that the Egyptians or any ancient people could generate such lift with kites, especially in a culture with no known evidence that they had kites at all. If so, the kites would have been ENORMOUS to get enough lift with less efficient design) and very dangerous (given weaker materials prone to failure) -- lining up all the folks drafted from the surrounding countryside to pull ropes seems simpler, and safer, and to me a lot more likely.
-------
And that is probably more than enough about THAT! If I get a definitive reply on what was ultimately lifted in the experiment, and with what sized kite, I'll share that.
Yes we made a heavy lift kite for (a client)
...
It's a single skin.(1)
I don't recall what it eventually lifted, (other folks that I am asking for more info) probably know- there was an attempt in Kuwait I think.
... A 4 sq.m(2) easily lifts 100kg in a stiffish breeze, a 16sq.m more than 500kg I'm sure ... The 16s are stable in every wind I've flown them in so far and have certainly endured gusts above 70km/hr, at which wind speed I just keep out of the way in case of line breakage, not silly enough to measure pull. I think I could make one big enough to do 5 tonne or so (lift not pull, they have very high
L/D(3) for a single line kite) without pushing fabric strength or budget limits.
(1) Most large stickless kites are "double skinned,"that is, there is a top and bottom layer of fabric sewn around the edges to form a "bag" that the wind inflates to give the kites their aerodynamic shape. Single skinned soft kites are trickier to design/make and keep in tune to fly well, but are lighter weight and can pull like a dang truck! Here's a pic corespondent included of one of the lifting kites being test-flown...
(2) We're now talking about a different design developed later, shaped like a big manta ray or stingray:
(3) Lift/drag. Show fliers prefer both forces be kept pretty small, with the exception of a few "top of a stack" kites that help lift the others in lighter winds. (Big show kites are often flown in a stack, to squeeze as much show as possible into limited field space.) For a kite designed specifically to lift weight, you of course would want as much energy as possible going into the UP vector. and as little as possible be wasted in the horizontal down-wind vector. If you just wanted to drag your pyramid rock across the ground, you'd want more drag and not necessarily as much lift.
It should be noted that these kites are made with modern materials and knowledge of aerodynamics. Given the lack of such advantages, I doubt strenuously that the Egyptians or any ancient people could generate such lift with kites, especially in a culture with no known evidence that they had kites at all. If so, the kites would have been ENORMOUS to get enough lift with less efficient design) and very dangerous (given weaker materials prone to failure) -- lining up all the folks drafted from the surrounding countryside to pull ropes seems simpler, and safer, and to me a lot more likely.
-------
And that is probably more than enough about THAT! If I get a definitive reply on what was ultimately lifted in the experiment, and with what sized kite, I'll share that.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Assume the obelisk weighs 100 tons (some are heavier).Meanwhile, here's a non-standard take that I do not consider to be at all convincing, but for obvious reasons I wish were true...
Assuming the obelisk is tapered, lifting and tilting it at the top as depicted might require ⅓, i.e. a lifting force of 30 tons. 4 pulleys, providing 8:1 leverage, result in a final pulling force of ~4 tons.
Technical challenge:
The pulley support structure is really high and must support 30 tons of lift, as well as a sideways component to pull the obelisk closer.
The final ground ring/brake must support ~6 tons of upward pull.
It might be easier to simply chain up enough oxen/slaves to generate the required power. If you were using an oxen treadmill with the rope being wound fairly close to the axis, that could easily add another factor of 8 to the leverage, so that you'd have maybe 4 or 6 oxen pulling 500 kg together.
Mauro
Senior Member.
As a proof of what human ingenuity can achieve, here a man, after showing how to move heavy items aroud, lifts a 9 ton (19200 punds) concrete pillar one meter off the ground, all alone and using only pieces of wood and rocks as tools, no ropes, no pulleys. Then he sets it vertically in a hole in the ground using just a rope as a restraint (I'm not saying this is what ancient Egyptians did, just that it's astonishing what just a single man can do).
The actual lifting and setting of the pillar starts at about 2:40
The actual lifting and setting of the pillar starts at about 2:40
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I think would make a great thread. I'm off to Baja next week, so no real time right now to scrounge up the History channel show about the kites in ancient Egypt at the moment. But when I get some time, I'll see if I can find it, unless someone beats me too it.
If the Egyptians had kites of more than kids toys size, or they used them for something adults would be interested in, I would expect them to be depicted on monuments and tomb paintings. They would be something you could put on ceilings and the upper sections of wall paintings, if only to fill in the space.
Of course there is the danger than serious minded archaeologists might dismiss a folded up kite in a tomb for a fan or random sticks, or a geometric shape on a ceiling as just some random heiroglyphic. If you are not looking for something you are less likely to notice it.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Remember that ancient Egypt had professional mathematicians: because the annual flood of the Nile would deposit fertile mud on the fields, geometers would need to measure and reallocate the land as the landmarks were covered up or washed away.
Now it is well within the scope of the skills of these people to realize:
• the upright obelisk has a center of gravity (CoG) at a certain height
• we can raise a lying obelisk to that height
• if we slide that obelisk down a curved ramp that preserves the height of the CoG, we have eliminated gravitational pull
If this works as I imagine, it'd be easy to get this confirmed on a small model. In that case (and as the guy in the video demonstrates), an obelisk could be raised with relatively small forces—no lifting harness, pulleys or kites would be needed.
@Nemon what does Wirsching think how it was done?
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
That's pretty good!! As a small-time building contractor with no engineering background, I've always had an inclination that people doing things like building pyramids had any number of simple practical ways of doing things. Just like this guy.
Not dissing on engineers, they're very important, but sometimes it's the guy out in the field tasked with actually moving or stacking the blocks, that works out an often elegant solution. I think that's why I have some much disregard for most of these Ancient Civilization/Atlantis/Aliens people. Sure, some just lack any practical knowledge about actually working with the materials in question and therefore can't fathom that a couple of guys with rock hammers can shape massive blocks. But most of them are a combination of modern-centric snobs and charlatans. Stone vases can only be made with modern computer-controlled diamond cutting devices, like we have now. And of course, as computer guys, they can program and use these machines. None of them could comprehend toiling with a hand powered copper and sand drill for days on end, so it must not have happened.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Here's another one, and again, probably some sort of thread on pyramid building is in order.
Others may have seen this bouncing around the internet, but here's the actual paper. Lead author, Xavier Landreau, from the Paris research institute Paleotechnic, and some colleagues are proposing the Djoser's step pyramid at Saqqara was built with hydraulic lifts. Landreau is some sort of material and plasma scientist and Paleotechnic is his own institute for studying "ancient technologies".
In a nut shell, he proposes that the builders of Djoser's pyramid, first built a dam nearby to create a lake when it rained a lot. The water contained in the dam then went through a water treatment system to clean and de-silt it so it could then be channeled to the construction site, then under the base of the pyramid where huge granite stone doors could be opened allowing the water to rush into a central shaft. A wooden raft, controlled through a rope and pully system could then be loaded with material and then be pushed up "volcano style" on the column of water to the next highest section where the material could then be off loaded.
Much like the kite lifts, it seems an overly complicated solution looking for a problem:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306690
Mauro
Senior Member.
I agree.
I'm not confident the method used in the video would work on a 400 tons obelisk, I guess the pieces of wood used to raise the block at its fuclrum would get crushed by the weight (but maybe one could use stone blocks? stone is pretty strong under compression). But I guess it'd be okay for Stonehenge-like stones.
I guess the obelisks were brought (while horizontal) to the desidered height (about 1/2 the total height of the obelisk) by dragging them over an inclined ramp, sliding them on a sledge, or on round beams.
Once the obelisk is at the desired height one can start removing the earth (or sand) from under the obelisk from one side, to make it rotate around its CoG so it stands up, and have it fall in a shallow hole in the ground bedrock (similar to what the man does in the video). [Not my idea btw, I read it somewhere. Looks workable, even if pretty dangerous... but work safety standards were different at those times]. But working this way risks cracking the obelisk in the middle, so pushing it down a ramp with increasing inclination could be better.
On a sideline (then I'll stop with obelisks, while fascinating, they are pretty much off topic here yiikes), obelisks are not only in Egypt. There are 13 obelisks in Rome, most of which were brought there by the Romans, who did not have problems too in transporting them across the Mediterranean and rising them up. Unfortunately I don't think (but I'm not sure) there are extant records of how the Romans did this, would be interesting to know. The obelisks fell to the ground after the Roman empire fell and many were raised again in the XVI-XVII century, and here there might be records on how they did it (I'm not sure), and technology at that time was not that much different from what Romans had (for the Egyptians the situation is different, they did not know iron, they did not know (or did not use) pulleys I think, etc.)
Edit: I just found the Wikipedia article on cranes has a lot of historical informations on ancient lifting devices.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
I see evidence for a water treatment system, up until the underground pipe leading into the pyramid. I can't judge how well it holds up.
How that water was used is 100% speculation.
Nemon
Senior Member
Wirsching (he was a naval architect) breaks it down into several sections: processing and transport from the quarry, then the thesis on shipbuilding (the obelisk is suspended between rafts linked together, utilizing the carrying capacity of the water and keeping the center of gravity low), and loading. It should be noted that Wirsching places the time frame in the flood phase of the Nile, which also puts the work of lifting into perspective. The dry transport from the quarry to the ship is carried out using a step-by-step "rowing" technique with levers.
He also discusses how the Romans later did the same with the transport of the obelisks to Italy, using more advanced technology—and how the Italians later did the same again with even more advanced technology and documentation.
Regarding the original erection of the obelisks in ancient Egypt, which is the most speculative: Here, as with the point of ship transport, he refutes existing models from his perspective and with his calculations. He arrives at a so-called slotted box principle: The obelisk lies between walls. With ropes pulled over the edges of the wall as deflection points, it finally ends up vertical. The handling of the loaded edges, etc., is also described and proven by evidence. The calculations are outside my expertise. But my focus was more on the ship transport topic.
I have the Kindle edition and think it's worth it. Is it okay if I include a screenshot here as an illustration, even if the original German text is visible and not the English translation?
Source:
Obelisken transportieren und aufrichten in Ägypten und in Rom: 3. erweiterte Auflage mit einem Exkurs zu den Memnonkolossen
von Armin Wirsching | 8. Mai 2013
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
Hydraulic lifts in an arid region would either be constrained to flood-season activity only, or use of a pump system to recycle the water, wouldn't it? I think if a civilization could construct and move the "huge granite stone doors", then surely it could construct a pyramid without the whole hydraulic system.
I'm not sure why a "water treatment system" would be needed.
Mendel
Senior Member.
To prevent the underground pipe from clogging up.
Ann K
Senior Member.
But the dam itself would do that, simply providing a settling basin, wouldn't it?
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yes. As I understood it, their "treatment system" is a series of settling basins.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
To a point. In a windy dusty desert, fine dust blows around and gets into everything. Your settling basin will be perpetually replenished with fresh dust sediment that needs to settle, unless you put some sort of cover on it.
Dust being vacuumed up from a swimming pool, results of a windy day:
Source: Me, pic taken out hotel window in Kuwait, Feb. 2008
Ann K
Senior Member.
There's a nearby dam that they want to take out, but first have to figure out a safe way to dispose of a century's worth of sediment behind it, some of it hazardous.
Hydraulic lifts in an arid region would either be constrained to flood-season activity only, or use of a pump system to recycle the water, wouldn't it? I think if a civilization could construct and move the "huge granite stone doors", then surely it could construct a pyramid without the whole hydraulic system.
I'm not sure why a "water treatment system" would be needed.
I would not get too hung up on the use of the term "water treatment system".
Not what I would consider a water treatment system by modern standards, no pumps and filter beds or chemicals to induce particle settling. But it would reduce sediment getting further downstream and into the plumbing.
Not the only term that sounds a bit off. They mention "pipes" being found in recent excavations, which to me suggests steel or reinforced concrete pipes, but I suspect what they found were simply tunnels through rock.
Terminology may also be effected here by language, some of their references are not in English.
Mendel
Senior Member.
this is not exactly an authoritative source, but...
Article: Many of the earliest plumbing systems were made with clay sewer pipes. The first known example of clay pipes dates back to 4000 BCE.
Nemon
Senior Member
Although the overall spread of aridity and desertification led to various populations orienting themselves increasingly towards the Nile and the establishment of the Pharaonic dynasties from ~5,000 BC - and the power structures were closely linked to agriculture - it is difficult to determine from the current state of research where and when exactly a sandy desert already existed in the period that includes the construction of the Great Pyramids. There are some indications that the region was considerably more humid, even later, and that we must assume that it was more of a savannah landscape. Evidence for this can be found in the findings concerning animal populations, but also cults that were associated with them. Yet it is very difficult to determine this more precisely because there may have been significant regional and temporary fluctuations in the climate.
Mendel
Senior Member.
...this is:
Article: The Historical Development of Sewers Worldwide
by Giovanni De Feo et al., Sustainability 2014, 6(6), 3936-3974; https://doi.org/10.3390/su6063936
4. Ancient Egyptians (ca. 2000–500 BC)
The Early Dynastic Period is a period of some 5000 years or more, the beginning of which is conventionally considered as the history of Ancient Egypt. A very important change that marks this period is the rise of urbanism. [..] Finer houses had bathrooms and toilet seats made of limestone. [..] Certain homes of aristocrats had copper pipes that carried hot and cold water. [..]
At the same time, ancient Egyptians were early developers of pipes. In the beginning, of course, their pipes and fittings were very crude. Like the Mesopotamians, they used clay pipe made from a combination of straw and clay. First it was dried in the sun, and then baked in ovens. As they improved, they worked deposits of the lead ore galena at Gebel Rosas to make net sinkers and plumb bobs. They were also early developers of Copper and the techniques of making copper alloys. Copper was the most important metal for tool making in ancient Egypt and was smelted in furnaces from malachite ore mined in the Sinai [33].
Copper pipes were used to build elaborate bathrooms inside the pyramids and intricate irrigation and sewages systems (2500 BC). According to their religion, to die was simply to pass from one state of life to another. If the living required food, clothing and other requirements of daily life, so did the dead. Thus, it's not surprising that archaeologists have discovered bathrooms in some tombs.
Excavators of the mortuary temple of King Suhura at Abusir discovered niches in the walls and remnants of stone basins. These were furnished with metal fittings for use as lavatories. The outlet of the basin is closed with a lead stopper attached to a chain and a bronze ring. The basin emptied through a copper pipe to a trough below. The pipe was made of 2.5/40 cm beaten copper to a diameter of a little less than 5 cm. A lap joint seam hammered it tight. Also, found within a pyramid temple built by King Tutankhamen's father-in-law at Abusir, was a brass drain pipe running from the upper temple along the connecting masonry causeway to the outer temple on the river.
Excavators have discovered a tomb which supposedly contains the body of Osiris before he became a god. It contains the dividing line between Life and Death, i.e., a deep moat containing water that surrounds all sides of the figure of the god on his throne. After 5,000 years, water still fills the canal through underground pipes from the River Nile. Recent excavations made on the site of Solimans Temple, establishes the fact that a thorough system of drainage and sewerage, was provided for the temple and its surroundings [34].
Mendel
Senior Member.
And from the same source, another myth explained:
It appears the labyrinth of the minotaur was simply a subterranean sewer system.
Which reminds me of the Herculean task of cleaning the stable of Augias through the application of plumbing.
Article: The complicated drainage and sewerage systems of Minoan palaces were greatly admired by people from other areas and/or from later periods, while sometimes they were also misunderstood. It can be argued that this is one of the factors that led to the conception of the complicated labyrinth mentioned in the Hellenic myth of Theseus and the Minotaur [15].
It appears the labyrinth of the minotaur was simply a subterranean sewer system.
Which reminds me of the Herculean task of cleaning the stable of Augias through the application of plumbing.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
OT: I once read a book that, as I recall, was a journal kept by an Englishwoman who was sent to Egypt "for her health". She described the rebuilding of the levees every year after the Nile floods, and said each village was required to provide their quota of workers. The men brought their own provisions and stayed for a few weeks.
It's hard to avoid the supposition that this same sort of system was used to get workers to build the pyramids; a required number of men per village, a few weeks work, then back home to tend their fields.
Mauro
Senior Member.
For what I know, during the Nile floods (some months each year) people could not work in the fields and had nothing to do, so the Pharohs used this source of manpower to build the pyramids. They were housed (in camps) and fed by the Pharoh, they did not need to take their own supplies with them.
Nemon
Senior Member
@Ann K
@Mauro
The structures of power and society through the ages make up a considerable part of Egyptological studies; only some of the researchers are concerned with the building of pyramids, which is of course more interesting for laypeople. The prime example of Giza is, of course, an interface between these topics. And there are also archaeological findings in situ at Heit el-Ghurab, the "Workers Town" at Giza. There are indications that it was a site of privileged workers involved in the construction. In any case, some old prejudices were no longer tenable. As a literature reference, this certainly offers a few interesting insights to start with:
https://www.academia.edu/26143657/Labor_and_the_Pyramids_The_Heit_el_Ghurab_Workers_Town_at_Giza
@Mauro
The structures of power and society through the ages make up a considerable part of Egyptological studies; only some of the researchers are concerned with the building of pyramids, which is of course more interesting for laypeople. The prime example of Giza is, of course, an interface between these topics. And there are also archaeological findings in situ at Heit el-Ghurab, the "Workers Town" at Giza. There are indications that it was a site of privileged workers involved in the construction. In any case, some old prejudices were no longer tenable. As a literature reference, this certainly offers a few interesting insights to start with:
https://www.academia.edu/26143657/Labor_and_the_Pyramids_The_Heit_el_Ghurab_Workers_Town_at_Giza
I actually just ordered Mick's Escaping the Rabbit Hole! I have read it before in ebook form, but I wanted a physical copy so I ordered the paperback. I am rereading it with a different application in mind: communicating with young men who have fallen into the manosphere with the goal of getting them out of that hateful community and mindset. It's obviously a different situation than the intention of the book, but I think a lot of the recommendations will apply. I need to reread it to get back parts I've forgotten, and I rereading with my goal in mind will help me come up with strategies.
