557 replies to this topic

[tri-lobe]

Swede, on 08 July 2010 - 02:16 AM, said:

Tri-lobe -  Fully understand your engineering position. Have not read Emery, but this could be a case of a well qualified individual who may have mis-interpreted an artifact. It has been known to happen. Were the artifact as Emery would appear to present, one would expect to recover actual parallels, as the time-line would easily allow for the preservation of such.

Of course, the labor/cost efficiency/materials choice of the artifact being a proto-type or mold-form is rather unrealistic.

I would also refer back to the previous in regards to supportive apparati. Such a form would, virtually by definition, need to be incorporated into a notably more complex system.

.

Hello Swede
           Thank you for your reply,....
           I understand your concerns in reguards to the..."a well qualified indervidual who may have mis-interpreted...many have done so"...
          
           I followed Emery's suggestion(I didn't think otherwise).......  
           If I'd worried about what if's!..What could be's!..Might be's...What should be's ..I would not have made my models....
      
           Where are the parrallels??.....
           Ther'er are no parrallels because it's unique...a one off...(many on this site would disagree)...thats ok...
           If it was a standard funeral item...there would be other examples....and there are not....
           If it was a standard ritural item...there  "     "   "      "    ...and there are not....
           If it was a standard item.........There would be many copies/replica's.........But there are none.....
           As I have said in my earlier posts.....I think(personal opinion)....That its unique.......

           Supportive apparati...and...more notably complex systems.......
           KTM-SESH suggested in his first post to me ...that the pedistal/support might have being stolen by grave robbers because it contianed gold or some other valuable material.....thats one reason....
           I have show'n to myself and friends that the tri-lobe bowl item will work at hand speeds..1 rev per sec..60rpm...low speed systems can operate with-out complex systems....eg..animal power........wind power.....to name a few...
          
           I look at the subject this way....Prince Sabu would have been an educated man....Why could he not have been educated in the ways and behaviours of water according to the knowledge of the time???.....even if it's different to our times...The item must have been important to Prince Sabu to have been buried with him....placed next to his coffin.....not around the walls with the mundane funeral items.....

           Swede...I made some models of an item.....I thought to share my personal experiences with said models...with photos.....all from my modern perspective....I know that i'm an unwashed FRINGEY.....But this fringey has gone one step beyond all other fringies on this subject....I made a working model(that anyone can do..I've shared my methods).....

            with regards
                       tri-lobe...

[cladking]

questionmark, on 04 July 2010 - 11:58 PM, said:

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

I was never completely happy with my response to this post.  I also
realized a few days ago that one of my points earlier in this thread
might easily have slipped through the cracks and not been noted by the
majority of posters.  

This is a good time to reiterate the point since the thread is at the top.

There was a fire-pan.  The Pyramid Texts refers to the fire-pan repeatedly
and by context this device would fit.  Context suggests the fire-pan provided
light and was associated with pyramid building.  

The point that might have been lost earlier is that Sethe translated "fire-pan"
as being a light source.  

So here we have a burning light source fueled by oil that was lit on the very
day that Osiris was said to have been born.  (what are the odds) This "fire
pan" was of immense importance to the builders proven by the fact that there
was a ceremony and feast when they got it out and another when they put it away
at a later date.  This light source burned under what the Gods created.  When
it burned under what the Gods created "workers" would rise to give an offering.  

This is not "generous interpretation".  This is the literal meaning of what the
pyramid builders actually said.  And these concepts have been past down through
the ages it would seem.

[cladking]

questionmark, on 04 July 2010 - 11:58 PM, said:

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

I was never completely happy with my response to this post.  I also
realized a few days ago that one of my points earlier in this thread
might easily have slipped through the cracks and not been noted by the
majority of posters.  

This is a good time to reiterate the point since the thread is at the top.

There was a fire-pan.  The Pyramid Texts refers to the fire-pan repeatedly
and by context this device would fit.  Context suggests the fire-pan provided
light and was associated with pyramid building.  

The point that might have been lost earlier is that Sethe translated "fire-pan"
as being a light source.  

So here we have a burning light source fueled by oil that was lit on the very
day that Osiris was said to have been born.  (what are the odds) This "fire
pan" was of immense importance to the builders proven by the fact that there
was a ceremony and feast when they got it out and another when they put it away
at a later date.  This light source burned under what the Gods created.  When
it burned under what the Gods created "workers" would rise to give an offering.  

This is not "generous interpretation".  This is the literal meaning of what the
pyramid builders actually said.  And these concepts have been passed down through
the ages it would seem.

Edited by cladking, 15 July 2010 - 04:13 PM.

[tri-lobe]

Oniomancer, on 08 July 2010 - 04:38 PM, said:

A functionally dish-like object serving a functional dish-like purpose? Naw, that's crazy talk.

        
Only if you promise to misunderstand and completely overreact again. I'm not into thrash though. I prefer easy listening.

Hello OM,
        It looks like my attempt at sarcasm failed...
        The official name of the TLB is THE ORNIMENTAL TRI-LOBE SCHIST BOWL...no practical use...Is that's whats inferred????..........
        Hence my comments about the doohicky serving a practicle function....
        In Emery's time untill?????.....it was the tri-lobe schist bowl...
        Now in modern times since ????? its becomes the ORNIMENTAL tri-lobe schist bowl.....Who decieded this???....Zahawi Harwass....
        
        I'm not trying prove a theory..write a book...or push an agender...
        I just tried to share my practicle expierances with a physical item....(that i made)a copy of something from long ago.....

        You did say to me....That if it quacks like a duck....Walks like a duck...Then it must be a duck......
        Is it fair for me to say...
        If it behaves like a water mover....performs like water mover...then it might be a water mover?????..
        Regards....
                   Tri-lobe..

[Swede]

tri-lobe, on 15 July 2010 - 03:19 PM, said:

Hello Swede
           Thank you for your reply,....
           I understand your concerns in reguards to the..."a well qualified indervidual who may have mis-interpreted...many have done so"...
          
           I followed Emery's suggestion(I didn't think otherwise).......  
           If I'd worried about what if's!..What could be's!..Might be's...What should be's ..I would not have made my models....
      
           Where are the parrallels??.....
           Ther'er are no parrallels because it's unique...a one off...(many on this site would disagree)...thats ok...
           If it was a standard funeral item...there would be other examples....and there are not....
           If it was a standard ritural item...there  "     "   "      "    ...and there are not....
           If it was a standard item.........There would be many copies/replica's.........But there are none.....
           As I have said in my earlier posts.....I think(personal opinion)....That its unique.......

           Supportive apparati...and...more notably complex systems.......
           KTM-SESH suggested in his first post to me ...that the pedistal/support might have being stolen by grave robbers because it contianed gold or some other valuable material.....thats one reason....
           I have show'n to myself and friends that the tri-lobe bowl item will work at hand speeds..1 rev per sec..60rpm...low speed systems can operate with-out complex systems....eg..animal power........wind power.....to name a few...
          
           I look at the subject this way....Prince Sabu would have been an educated man....Why could he not have been educated in the ways and behaviours of water according to the knowledge of the time???.....even if it's different to our times...The item must have been important to Prince Sabu to have been buried with him....placed next to his coffin.....not around the walls with the mundane funeral items.....

           Swede...I made some models of an item.....I thought to share my personal experiences with said models...with photos.....all from my modern perspective....I know that i'm an unwashed FRINGEY.....But this fringey has gone one step beyond all other fringies on this subject....I made a working model(that anyone can do..I've shared my methods).....

            with regards
                       tri-lobe...

tri-lobe: Apologies for the slow reply. First, I do not personally consider you to be a "fringy". It would appear that you are a practical and talented individual who has taken the time and effort to more fully understand the nature of the artifact. As previously noted, I compliment your efforts and what can be learned from them.

I would suggest, however, that your own points support the current supposition that the artifact in question may have had a more ceremonial/religious function.

The current lack of parallels (particularly in other mediums), combined with its presence as a funerary item, may lead one to speculate that the artifact was not intended to be a sub-assemblage of a more elaborate mechanism.

I would speculate that you are aware of the wide array of non-mechanical items associated with burials across the planet. "One-offs" of spiritual/position significance would appear to be not at all uncommon.

As to the bare mechanics; my mention of associated apparati is factor that I am confident you fully understand. Axles, transfer gearing, load bearings, super-structure, etc. For an object of this nature to actually function as part of a water transport mechanism would entail quite an extensive array of components. There would appear, at least to date, no evidence of artifacts that would compliment such an apparatus.

.

[kmt_sesh]

Swede, on 17 July 2010 - 02:02 AM, said:

tri-lobe: Apologies for the slow reply. First, I do not personally consider you to be a "fringy". It would appear that you are a practical and talented individual who has taken the time and effort to more fully understand the nature of the artifact. As previously noted, I compliment your efforts and what can be learned from them.

I would suggest, however, that your own points support the current supposition that the artifact in question may have had a more ceremonial/religious function.

The current lack of parallels (particularly in other mediums), combined with its presence as a funerary item, may lead one to speculate that the artifact was not intended to be a sub-assemblage of a more elaborate mechanism.

I would speculate that you are aware of the wide array of non-mechanical items associated with burials across the planet. "One-offs" of spiritual/position significance would appear to be not at all uncommon.

As to the bare mechanics; my mention of associated apparati is factor that I am confident you fully understand. Axles, transfer gearing, load bearings, super-structure, etc. For an object of this nature to actually function as part of a water transport mechanism would entail quite an extensive array of components. There would appear, at least to date, no evidence of artifacts that would compliment such an apparatus.

.

Well worded, Swede.

I have to say to you, tri-lobe, that despite the stodgy and boring old conservative that I am, I also don't consider you to be "fringy." Your own unique talents enabled you to contribute some interesting thoughts to this discussion.

I do have to emphasize again, however, that this type of technology is unknown in pharaonic Egypt. I agree with Swede that such a device would require a multiplicity of parts, and nothing of the sort has been identified in 200 years of archaeology. Now, it's quite possible as a nobleman Sabu had a number of different titles and functions during the reign of King Anedjib, and one of these may have been something akin to the well-attested title "overseer of the canals." I am stating this purely on speculative grounds because as far as I'm aware there is no evidence to associate Sabu with this position, but someone under Anedjib would've been. This put the person in charge of irrigation projects and maintenance, which was critical to agricultural operations in the Nile Valley from Dynasty 1 on.

Still, the Egyptians never developed complicated machinery. Canaanites would eventually bring the shaduf to Egypt, and this was as sophisticated as irrigation techniques seemed to be until the Greeks introduced the Archimedean screw in the third century BCE.

I must also agree with Swede on the nature of grave goods. It was the norm for noblemen and others of high status to be buried with all manner of prestige items. A great percentage of these were purely ritual in nature. Although cladking's argument for a floating stone firepan is also unattested in the archaeological record, I do bend to the possibility that it was for burning incense or the like. I personally still most favor the position of ritual offering platter, a great many of which were painted on tomb walls or placed in tombs down through pharaonic history.

[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 17 July 2010 - 04:08 AM, said:

Still, the Egyptians never developed complicated machinery.

This might be a fine point but I'd say that the Egyptians were
masters of simple machinery and could improve on it until it was
really rather complicated.  Look at their boats; lots of moving
parts.  

I've not seen evidence that they had any machines with many inte-
gral parts.  

I more than anyone would like to believe in pumps but for previ-
ously stated reasons can't accept this as one.  I also admire Tri-
lobe's efforts and hope he discovers something.  

Whatever this thing was it was very important.  I'm sure it would
not have been a broken bowl but it might have been an intact one.

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 17 July 2010 - 04:26 AM, said:

This might be a fine point but I'd say that the Egyptians were
masters of simple machinery and could improve on it until it was
really rather complicated.  Look at their boats; lots of moving
parts.  

I've not seen evidence that they had any machines with many inte-
gral parts.  

I more than anyone would like to believe in pumps but for previ-
ously stated reasons can't accept this as one.  I also admire Tri-
lobe's efforts and hope he discovers something.  

Whatever this thing was it was very important.  I'm sure it would
not have been a broken bowl but it might have been an intact one.

I was referring specifically to machinery in the manner of gears and such, but you're correct: their boats were quite elegant and sophisticated. They required complicated organization and logistics to operate. We could also add chariots to the mix because, aside from the Hittites, few foreigners the Egyptians encountered in the New Kingdom could match them on the field of battle in chariot operations.

[Oniomancer]

tri-lobe, on 15 July 2010 - 04:45 PM, said:

Hello OM,
        It looks like my attempt at sarcasm failed...
        The official name of the TLB is THE ORNIMENTAL TRI-LOBE SCHIST BOWL...no practical use...Is that's whats inferred????..........
        Hence my comments about the doohicky serving a practicle function....
        In Emery's time untill?????.....it was the tri-lobe schist bowl...
        Now in modern times since ????? its becomes the ORNIMENTAL tri-lobe schist bowl.....Who decieded this???....Zahawi Harwass....

"Ornamental" has multiple meanings in a decorative context, most of which do not automatically imply the opposite of functional. That is, an object can be both ornamental _and_ functional. Without knowing just how Hawass meant it, either one of us would be just guessing. At most it comes off as a reverse cop-out erring in the other direction away from the usual "ceremonial" tag that got hung on any artifact of uncertain purpose in the past.

      

Quote

I'm not trying prove a theory..write a book...or push an agender...
        I just tried to share my practicle expierances with a physical item....(that i made)a copy of something from long ago.....

        You did say to me....That if it quacks like a duck....Walks like a duck...Then it must be a duck......
        Is it fair for me to say...
        If it behaves like a water mover....performs like water mover...then it might be a water mover?????..
        Regards....
                   Tri-lobe..

The question has been raised about it's efficiency as such. As I may have mentioned before,
As an engineer, I'm sure you're also familiar with the principle of the kludge, to the corollary effect that just because something can be used for a specific task doesn't mean it was intended for that task.
The question also still remains as to why they would go to the trouble to model a supposedly mundane piece of hardware in a costly, difficult to work and relatively weak material, which works against any insistence about wear marks. As a presentation piece, the real thing would've probably almost been less expensive and more practical for the afterlife.

Edited by Oniomancer, 17 July 2010 - 05:56 AM.

[cladking]

I had misunderstood this utterance and thought it didn't
apply.  I believe I'm coming to understand the nature/ purpose
of Śrḳt-ḥtw and this would be a direct reference to the light
of the tri-lobed disc;

Utterance 362.

605a. To say: Father of N., father of N. in darkness,
605b. father of N., Atum, in darkness, bring N. to thy side,
606a. that he may kindle the light for thee and protect thee,
606b. as Nun protected these four goddesses,
606c. the day they protected the throne (bed
606d. Isis, Nephthys, Neit, Śrḳt-ḥtw.

It is only Osiris N who can kindle and maintain the light just
as these Goddesses are associated with and dependent on Nun (God
of water). And as they protect N (the dead king) as the pyramid.  

It's all falling into place and Serket is key. Nehebkau (Nḥb-kȝ.w)
is the son/ consort of Serket and  critical to understanding the
ancients.  He is a neter (aspect of nature) as are all the Gods.  

" The king, in turn, assists Atum, as we read in utterance 362: “O my father Atum in darkness! Fetch me to your side, so that I may kindle a light for you and that I may protect you.”

http://henadology.wo...y/netjeru/atum/

[Apotheodaimon]

Misplaced ashtray from the street? So tell me, why is this one thing so strange? I see these articles and all I am thinking is: fragile object with no mechanical use (not strange), to me it looks like a giant ashcatch from an even more giant hookah, which is more likely the case I would say.
Fire dish or ashtray, either way it is a man made object with a man made purpose.
If you find some wheels and a rope or chain you dont assume they had bicycles, you imagine a pulley system do you not?

But hey What do I know?

[path_finder]

suppressed for not acceptance of the PNG picture

Edited by path_finder, 13 September 2010 - 06:23 PM.

[path_finder]

I'm sorry, but I persists and sign. See here:  details of the attached drawing

Attached Files

•  inside_drum1bis.png   5.68K   10 downloads

[Eldorado]

Some nice pics, sketches and theories here.......
http://www.oocities..../Tomb_3111.html

[cladking]

path_finder, on 13 September 2010 - 06:18 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but I persists and sign. See here:  details of the attached drawing

Interesting.  Thanks.

I've spent many hours thinking about perpetual motion and trying to build working models.  

The last thing I need is a new web site.