The Mysterious Egyptian Tri-Lobed Disc

[cluey]

Emery mentions this tri-lobed vessel in his book Archaic Egypt, but it is not a significant part of the book. He makes only a couple of comments on it, as I recall.

thanks...as always.......will check it out

[Harte]

lightly - Haven't taken the time to dig into this too much, but I did notice that the source for the material in your reference is a book by Rene Noorbergen. A quick check on this individual may be enlightening. I'll try not to bias your conclusions.

Also, one must question an interpretation that led to the determination of a mercury/zinc amalgam. Just off the top of my head on this one, but it would appear rather problematic.

According to this, your date is off as well:

Rao Saheb Krishnaji Vajhe had passed the engineering exam in 1891 from Pune. While looking for scriptures related to science, he found a few pages of the Agastya Samhita with Damodar Tryambak Joshi of Ujjain. These belonged to around Shaka Samvat 1550. Later on, after reading the said description in the pages of the Samhita, Dr. M.C.Sahastrabuddhe, the Head of the Sanskrit Department in Nagpur felt that the description was very similar to that of Daniel Cell. So he gave it to P.P. Hole, the Professor of Engineering at Nagpur, with a request to investigate. Agastya?s sources were as follows:

SOURCE

The bolded portion above refers to the year 1628 CE (1550 + 78)

Harte

[lightly]

Thanks Harte, but i'm puzzled... because according to the source you linked ... when the instructions were followed... the result was a functional electric cell. ? " Thus, a cell was formed and measured with a digital multimeter. It had an open circuit voltage of 1.38 volts and short circuit current of 23 milli amperes."

*?

Edited April 19, 2010 by lightly

[Harte]

Thanks Harte, but i'm puzzled... because according to the source you linked ... when the instructions were followed... the result was a functional electric cell. ? " Thus, a cell was formed and measured with a digital multimeter. It had an open circuit voltage of 1.38 volts and short circuit current of 23 milli amperes."

*?

That refers to this guy:

So he gave it to P.P. Hole, the Professor of Engineering at Nagpur, with a request to investigate. Agastya?s sources were as follows:

Prof. Hole was the one that tried to interpret what the Agastya Samhita was saying.

BTW, I have been unable to find this Veda, so obviously I don't believe it. I've read quite a lot of Vedas (parts thereof anyway) and I've found in every instance that what was claimed was not to be found in the actual texts.

Harte

[lightly]

That refers to this guy:

Prof. Hole was the one that tried to interpret what the Agastya Samhita was saying.

BTW, I have been unable to find this Veda, so obviously I don't believe it. I've read quite a lot of Vedas (parts thereof anyway) and I've found in every instance that what was claimed was not to be found in the actual texts.

Harte

okeydoke, Thanks Harte . . . *shrug*

[MichandMe]

It appears to be a vortex concentrator. You could drill with wind using this thing at the end of a jet engine. The article says it's made of stone! Interesting artwork.

[cladking]

Well.

A wick works through capillary action. Essentially it gets "wet"

with the fuel and as it burns it sucks up more fuel so it stays

wet. An ink pen works in a similar fashion.

1659a. Horus has given the gods to thee; he has caused them to ascend to thee, as (reed)-pens,

1659b. that they may illuminate thy face (cheer thee) as temples.

I haven't cited this one before only because it would require some

small translation error in order for it to refer to the action of

the fire-pan but then there is probably no interpretation that would

make this really logical and in line with the rest of the PT.

I would remove Mercer's explanatory notes and insert some that might

make the intended meaning more clear.

1659a. Horus has given the gods to thee; he has caused them to ascend to thee (just) as (do) pens,

1659b. that they may illuminate thy face as (well as) temples.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt43.htm

I could really get used to fixing Mercer so it fits a literal under-

standing.

[Oniomancer]

Well.

A wick works through capillary action. Essentially it gets "wet"

with the fuel and as it burns it sucks up more fuel so it stays

wet. An ink pen works in a similar fashion.

1659a. Horus has given the gods to thee; he has caused them to ascend to thee, as (reed)-pens,

1659b. that they may illuminate thy face (cheer thee) as temples.

I haven't cited this one before only because it would require some

small translation error in order for it to refer to the action of

the fire-pan but then there is probably no interpretation that would

make this really logical and in line with the rest of the PT.

I would remove Mercer's explanatory notes and insert some that might

make the intended meaning more clear.

1659a. Horus has given the gods to thee; he has caused them to ascend to thee (just) as (do) pens,

1659b. that they may illuminate thy face as (well as) temples.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt43.htm

I could really get used to fixing Mercer so it fits a literal under-

standing.

Illuminate has more than one meaning Clad.

[kmt_sesh]

Illuminate has more than one meaning Clad.

Indeed, cladking's "revisions" are artificial and do not correspond to what the glyphs themselves say.

[cladking]

Illuminate has more than one meaning Clad.

Yes it does.

...nd no doubt, so too, did the word that they used for

"illuminate". Mercer thought the best translation was this

word and it meant "cheer thee". But whatever the word was

it obviously had some meaning similar to "illuminate" or it

was exactly "illuminate" and he believed it was a euphimism

meaning "cheer thee".

My point isn't and never has been that there are a few iso-

lated phrases in the Pyramid Texts that can be taken literal-

ly. My point is that the entire work is amenable to a liter-

al understanding.

I doubt the ancients were able to harness the power of capil-

lary action for practicl purposes such as building pyramids

but it was the foundational principle of their writing instru-

ments, candles, and oil lamps. It was probably used limitedly

for other purposes. It would have been a source of fascination.

These lines have no real sense in English so I felt free to re-

write them little. There must be a translation error since

they make no sense. It's possible that it was written nonsens-

ically but this is the exception in this work so error is the

best guess.

[cladking]

Indeed, cladking's "revisions" are artificial and do not correspond to what the glyphs themselves say.

Since the translation is apparently in error I would

be extremely interested in hearing more about the mean-

ing of the glyphs.

One way or the other everything always seems to come back

to support water pressure to build and a literal meaning

of the PT.

[cladking]

1807b. Osiris N., thy face is opened by the light.

1807c. Osiris N., thy [face is illuminated] as the earth is illuminated.

1808a. Osiris N., I have given the eye of Horus to thee, as Rē‘ gives it (the light).

You can see how it's used here.

I believe if the PT were translated with a view toward a literal

meaning the entire thing would make a lot more sense. A literal

meaning was never considered before so it's been translated to be

consistent with the same metaphoric meaning as the book of the dead.

[kmt_sesh]

1807b. Osiris N., thy face is opened by the light.

1807c. Osiris N., thy [face is illuminated] as the earth is illuminated.

1808a. Osiris N., I have given the eye of Horus to thee, as Rē‘ gives it (the light).

You can see how it's used here.

I believe if the PT were translated with a view toward a literal

meaning the entire thing would make a lot more sense. A literal

meaning was never considered before so it's been translated to be

consistent with the same metaphoric meaning as the book of the dead.

Translators draw from what the original vocabulary meant. Some examples:

face =

Hr

opened =

wpt

illuminated =

wbn

earth =

tA

thy face is illuminated as the earth is illuminated =

wbn Hr.k m wbn tA

It's not always this simple to be sure but the passage you posted is straight forward. The translation is basic (errors in the above would be mine because I'm at work and don't have access to my library to fact-check myself). It merely requires some polishing in rendering so it makes sense to a reader of English (e.g., a straight translation of wbn Hr.k m wbn tA would be "illuminated your face as illuminated the earth"). The translations are literal in the first step, then tweaked to make sense according to English syntax. The overall meanings behind religious phraseology were certainly often metaphorical, but none of them support your contentions. You're making statements about the processes of translation when you don't even know what those processes are, or the methodologies involved.

[cladking]

You're making statements about the processes of translation when you don't even know what those processes are, or the methodologies involved.

Of course I do. Really everyone does in some way shape or

form but I've translated from Spanish to English and vice

versa and have translated from English to computer languages

and from technical speak to English.

Everytime you talk you have to talk to your audience. I don't

use a lot of six and seven syllable words when I speak to 2nd

graders.

When you translate something you put what you think the meaning

is in a different language.

The simple fact is that communication is never perfect because

word meanings are always dependent on individuals. In all cases

word meanings and meanings of phrases can be entirely lost where

referents aren't shared. If they were referring to the fire-pan

that burned when the water flowed then just what possible chance

did any translator have of arriving at a good translation? None

whatsoever. The same thing applies to the entire PT.

[cladking]

Translators draw from what the original vocabulary meant. Some examples:

face =

Hr

opened =

wpt

illuminated =

wbn

earth =

tA

thy face is illuminated as the earth is illuminated =

wbn Hr.k m wbn tA

It's not always this simple to be sure but the passage you posted is straight forward. The translation is basic (errors in the above would be mine because I'm at work and don't have access to my library to fact-check myself). It merely requires some polishing in rendering so it makes sense to a reader of English (e.g., a straight translation of wbn Hr.k m wbn tA would be "illuminated your face as illuminated the earth"). The translations are literal in the first step, then tweaked to make sense according to English syntax. The overall meanings behind religious phraseology were certainly often metaphorical, but none of them support your contentions.

I'm not disregarding your translation here and I have no reason to

doubt it. This goes double since you say this one is quite straight

forward. It's simply a matter that it is still consistent with my

literal understanding. Granted, it is not so close a fit as those

lines quoted earlier in this thread and the intent might have been

something else. But it should be put in context to really try to see

the intent.

Utterance 638.

1805a. To say: Osiris N., the gods have bound thy face to thee;

1805b. Horus has given his eye to thee, that thou mayest see [with it].

1806a. Osiris N., Horus has opened thine eye for thee, that thou mayest see with it,

1806b. in its name of "She who opens the ways of god."

Utterance 639.

1807a. To say [Osiris N.], take the eye of Horus, being alive, that thou mayest see with it.

1807b. Osiris N., thy face is opened by the light.

1807c. Osiris N., thy [face is illuminated] as the earth is illuminated.

1808a. Osiris N., I have given the eye of Horus to thee, as Rē‘ gives it (the light).

1808b. Osiris N., [put the eye] of Horus to thyself, that thou mayest see with it.

1809a. Osiris N., I have opened thine eye that thou mayest see with it.

1809b. Osiris N. the ointment.

Horus has given "she who opens the ways of God" to Osiris/ the

dead king. He has opened this eye given to the dead king that he

can see with it apparently. The eye is alive when it is being used.

Then comes 1807b which is a little stickier. Without ever speaking

of any light it suddenly says that a face is opened by the light. We

need to come bacjk to what light and hold the concept of "opening a face"

at arms lenght.

One thing about this light is that both the face and the earth is il-

luminated by it. 1808a introduces another person (the writer) who claims

to have given the eye as well as did Re (though Mercer believes Re gave

the light). The last three lines are easier and suggest that the eye

mustr be opened and accepted by Osiris N that Osiris N can see. It also

has ointment.

I don't think any interpretation is going to make this smooth.

But seeing this in a literal way makes it smooth enough. Any roughness

might be attributable to translation error. The very next line;

1810a. To say: O Geb, thy son is Osiris N.;

Shows the relationship of Geb to the dead king. The dead king is the pyra-

mid and is a part of the earth (Geb). The earth as the pyramid is illuminated

by something. Re may be mentioned only through his association with the eye

rather than the source of the illumination.

The "ointment" by the way appears from context to be a mixture of grease, mus-

ilaganeos myrhh, and natron which was applied at the eye to degas it and make

it safe to work. This puts these utterances in the light of moving water.

In other words it's night time the water is flowing and the fire-pan burns.

[Oniomancer]

1807a. To say [Osiris N.], take the eye of Horus, being alive, that thou mayest see with it.

1807b. Osiris N., thy face is opened by the light.

1807c. Osiris N., thy [face is illuminated] as the earth is illuminated.

1808a. Osiris N., I have given the eye of Horus to thee, as Rē‘ gives it (the light).

1808b. Osiris N., [put the eye] of Horus to thyself, that thou mayest see with it.

1809a. Osiris N., I have opened thine eye that thou mayest see with it.

1809b. Osiris N. the ointment.

Shows the relationship of Geb to the dead king. The dead king is the pyra-

mid and is a part of the earth (Geb). The earth as the pyramid is illuminated

by something. Re may be mentioned only through his association with the eye

rather than the source of the illumination.

The "ointment" by the way appears from context to be a mixture of grease, mus-

ilaganeos myrhh, and natron which was applied at the eye to degas it and make

it safe to work. This puts these utterances in the light of moving water.

In other words it's night time the water is flowing and the fire-pan burns.

Sounds more like a description of laser eye surgery.

[cladking]

Here's another version of the Emerald Tablets. This work is

believed to have its roots much further back than has been pre-

viously considered according to this new site.

"'After my entrance into the chamber, where the talisman was set up, I came up to an old man sitting on a golden throne, who was holding an emerald table in one hand. And behold the following -in Syriac, the primordial language- was written thereon :

Here (is) a true explanation, concerning which there can be no doubt. It attests : the above from the below, and the below from the above - the work of the miracle of the One. And things have been from this primal substance through a single act. How wonderful is this work ! It is the main (principle) of the world and is its maintainer. Its father is the sun and its mother the moon. The wind has borne it in its body, and the earth has nourished it. The father of talismen and the protector of miracles whose powers are perfect, and whose lights are confirmed (?). A fire that becomes earth. Separate the earth from the fire, so you will attain the subtle as more inherent than the gross, with care and sagacity. It rises from earth to heaven, so as to draw the lights of the heights to itself, and descends to the earth ; thus within it are the forces of the above and the below ; because the light of lights within it, thus does the darkness flee before it. The force of forces, which overcomes every subtle thing and penetrates into everything gross. The structure of the microcosm is in accordance with the structure of the macrocosm. And accordingly proceed the knowledgeable.

And to this aspired Hermes, who was threefold graced with wisdom. And this is his last book, which he concealed in the chamber.'"

It says that Hermes built the pyramids according to Arab legend

and here it says that "because the light of lights within it, thus

does the darkness flee before it.". This I suspect is a reference

to the fire-pan. The other references to light are to the rainbows

seen duruing the day. Hermes is Greek for Osiris (not Thot) and he

built the pyramids.

Some of this got garbled in the legends a little such as Osiris was

the great grandson of Atum who was the God of the ben ben rather than

the grandson of Arab legend. Mostly it seems quite clear.

http://www.sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/emerald.htm

[tri-lobe]

If you take in account the virtual axle (explained above in another post), you can see in the drawing herafter how the geometrical shape of the trilobed bowl can be use as a part of the whole design. As you can see, everything is related to the outer rim of the wheel, wich is another basic principle of the gravitic engines.

Some other important properties cannot be represented in this 2D drawing, but I hope this first level of information can help you to believe I'm not fully fool.

This object is really a marvel of optimization for the paths of the moving parts.

Hello Pathfinder,

I went to the effort of making a firberglass model of the trilobe bowl(the first in 5000yrs,no egyptoligist or expert could be bothered) I can show to all interested that this item is capable of pushing water, you can replicate this fore yourself, if your interested, I could, therefore you can.

I have posted photo's in this thread how I went about this.In my opinion form follows function(the opposite to some on this site).

Some folk on this site feel that items dug up by egyptoloist's are only ritural or ornimental therefore not part of a functional group.

Why have a raised cental hub? Why have a circumferential band? Why does it create a vortex when spinning?

There'r are double standards on this site by the control freaks that the herd follows.........

If i use Emery or Alderd, there're to old for references... but it's ok for Wilkinson(1999)and Wendrow(2006)....but not for me to use.

I feel that i'm dealing with low brow interlectural snobbery...but then I'm not dealing with people with techincal qualifications.

I have been told that history and archeaology are soft sciences as apposed to the hard sciences of eningeering,phyics,chemistry and geology.

Path finder, best of luck with your time on this subject,

With regards trilobe.....

[tri-lobe]

If you take in account the virtual axle (explained above in another post), you can see in the drawing herafter how the geometrical shape of the trilobed bowl can be use as a part of the whole design. As you can see, everything is related to the outer rim of the wheel, wich is another basic principle of the gravitic engines.

Some other important properties cannot be represented in this 2D drawing, but I hope this first level of information can help you to believe I'm not fully fool.

This object is really a marvel of optimization for the paths of the moving parts.

Hello Pathfinder

Please have a look at several photos on this thread that some individuals claim are the same as the trilobe bowl,

NO raised central hub, No circumferencial band,no full tri- lobe folds.

I state once again that the TRI-LOBE BOWL ....is unique,a one off....show me a photo of exactly the same shape to the tee.

If there'r was a exact similar item , the smart a..es on this site would have shown it to prove their point.....

All that they can do is distract you with ther're personal opinons...oftern dragged from wikkicrap.

remember the experts said that heavier than air machines would NEVER FLY,

From Australia I've flown to egypt,jordan,lebenon,syria,iran....experts run the economy....and thats working...

IF you wont to solve a technical problem you don't asked a historian or an art expert , they'll only have a opinion based upon what they're read in someone eles's book.....too lazy to write and publish their own....to scared to voice an opinion out side the box.......

with regards...trilobe.

[kmt_sesh]

...

There'r are double standards on this site by the control freaks that the herd follows.........

If i use Emery or Alderd, there're to old for references... but it's ok for Wilkinson(1999)and Wendrow(2006)....but not for me to use.

I feel that i'm dealing with low brow interlectural snobbery...but then I'm not dealing with people with techincal qualifications.

I have been told that history and archeaology are soft sciences as apposed to the hard sciences of eningeering,phyics,chemistry and geology.

...

Technical qualifications are not necessarily relevant to proper inquiry. Look at Chris Dunn. He seems to have ample technical qualifications but it's painfully clear the man has no understanding of the culture itself or of its technology. This is why he is not taken seriously. The man's theories are just silly. If you don't begin with a solid understanding of the ancient Egyptian people and the capabilities, advantages, and disadvantages of their Bronze Age engineering, then everything that follows in your theory is not really tenable for the purpose of legitimate scientific inquiry.

You can pick and choose your sources all you want. The simple truth is, in almost all cases, the more modern research is simply the more grounded and reliable to follow. I have since gone on to purchase Emery's book for my own library and have noted that he says almost nothing of substance about this object. You might not want to toot his horn too much. It clearly wasn't key to any of his research.

There are no double standards at UM. There is simply the people who favor the fringe and its representatives, and the people who favor hard science and history and its representatives. The analogy of the herd is apt, but not for proper inquiry. The herd follows the fringe, as is painfully obvious in discussion after discussion. Like cattle, they follow whatever the fringe writers say without question and without performing their own fact checking. Moo.

I'm not quite sure why this particular discussion keeps coming back. All that seems to be added to it is baseless speculation and tiresome redundancy. Everything meaningful to say in this thread was said long ago. I myself really ought to stop responding, but your outburst required a response.

[cladking]

The simple truth is, in almost all cases, the more modern research is simply the more grounded and reliable to follow.

I don't believe this is still true. For the last generation the

status quo has even become entrenched in the sciences, even in the

hard sciences.

Everything meaningful to say in this thread was said long ago.

Only if you believe the tri lobed disc in an ornamental bowl.

Everyone else seems to think it's not necessarily just bad art.

[questionmark]

Everyone else seems to think it's not necessarily just bad art.

And besides speculation and generous interpretation of ancient scrolls you naturally have a way to prove that...

[Oniomancer]

Hello Pathfinder

Please have a look at several photos on this thread that some individuals claim are the same as the trilobe bowl,

NO raised central hub, No circumferencial band,no full tri- lobe folds.

I state once again that the TRI-LOBE BOWL ....is unique,a one off....show me a photo of exactly the same shape to the tee.

If there'r was a exact similar item , the smart a..es on this site would have shown it to prove their point.....

All that they can do is distract you with ther're personal opinons...oftern dragged from wikkicrap.

remember the experts said that heavier than air machines would NEVER FLY,

From Australia I've flown to egypt,jordan,lebenon,syria,iran....experts run the economy....and thats working...

IF you wont to solve a technical problem you don't asked a historian or an art expert , they'll only have a opinion based upon what they're read in someone eles's book.....too lazy to write and publish their own....to scared to voice an opinion out side the box.......

with regards...trilobe.

TL! Good to see you back, seriously! Pray tell, what do you think of the siltstone doohickey found in Sabu's tomb, the one with the broken out triangle motif in the center?

http://www.gizabuildingproject.com/images/art_so28.jpg

[Swede]

"Hello Pathfinder,

I went to the effort of making a firberglass model of the trilobe bowl(the first in 5000yrs,no egyptoligist or expert could be bothered) I can show to all interested that this item is capable of pushing water, you can replicate this fore yourself, if your interested, I could, therefore you can.

I have posted photo's in this thread how I went about this.In my opinion form follows function(the opposite to some on this site).

Some folk on this site feel that items dug up by egyptoloist's are only ritural or ornimental therefore not part of a functional group.

Why have a raised cental hub? Why have a circumferential band? Why does it create a vortex when spinning?

There'r are double standards on this site by the control freaks that the herd follows.........

If i use Emery or Alderd, there're to old for references... but it's ok for Wilkinson(1999)and Wendrow(2006)....but not for me to use.

I feel that i'm dealing with low brow interlectural snobbery...but then I'm not dealing with people with techincal qualifications.

I have been told that history and archeaology are soft sciences as apposed to the hard sciences of eningeering,phyics,chemistry and geology.

Path finder, best of luck with your time on this subject,

With regards trilobe....."

Trilobe - I don't mean to "pile on " here, just attempt to clarify a few points.

1) I applaud your efforts in regard to constructing a replica of the artifact in question. Well done.

2) As an adjunct to my regular research, I am also quite involved in experimental studies and, without going into detail, have more than a passing familiarity with quite a range of material types and the associated technologies (lithic, ceramic, metallurgical, faunal, floral, etc). My undergrad work was in Bio./Math and Chem. I also have two shops that are quite well outfitted. Not "soft" stuff. Thus I am rather familiar with the properties of both fiberglass and a wide array of lithic materials.

3) One must be aware of the "structural properties" of schist. This is a rather soft material that tends to exfoliate. To subject the lightly structured trilobe to high RPM's in a medium such as the atmosphere would likely lead to rapid disintegration due to centrifugal stress. In a medium such as H2O, this would be an almost certainty.

4) I am unaware of any research that would indicate bearing load wear on the interior of the central hub. In a material such as schist, such wear would be expected to appear quite rapidly. Are you personally aware of any collaborative evidence?

5) While the design would certainly create a vortex, so does a flat wooden blade mounted at 180 degrees on a shaft in a 3/8 VSR. Not necessarily conclusive. Were the artifact designed as a true impeller, why are the "blades" of symmetrical pitch?

6) I am also unaware of the recovery of any of the multitude of other elements of the mechanism(s) with which this artifact would have to been incorporated in order to function as speculated.

7) Your understanding that "form follows function" is not, in itself, incorrect. However, one may wish to consider the functional intent of the original designer/creator.

Some factors to ponder.

.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Swede

[cladking]

And besides speculation and generous interpretation of ancient scrolls you naturally have a way to prove that...

Form follows function.

This is effectively a law of nature. This is how things have been

reverse engineered forever; if you understand the form you can make

deductions about the function.

The simple fact is that not only does this have all of the character-

istics of a floating oil lamp used in water that is degassing but it

apparently is mentioned many times in the ancient record. If it is

then it's also the origin of the word "God".

Alteratively one can believe that it's art of a type that no longer

exists or one of trhe other many possibilities. I will never believe

the "art" idea unless real substantiation is found. TYhe nature of

art has never changed and never will. This does not appear to be in

any way artistic to my eyes.