SamDavies, on 21 February 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:
Thanks, P101. REally appriciate above great info. Will also go and do my own checking out of given info.
Yes, OP link (not the poster, bouncer) was rather

. reminds me of some years ago I got all excited that an Egyptian hieroglyphic was an alien gray face and made some thread on UM. Which turned out to be that vase or whatever, lol. Sure you know what one I'm talking about. Ah, the lessons learnt. Check first before getting too excited. Still have to look at any links though to check out the info and counter if necessary. After all, can not comment on something if not read or at least seen who is behind info.
Look forward to further input re electrodes and all.
Cheers.
SamD
Edit as had Original Posters name wrong

Hi SamDavies
Heck, the biggest problem is where do I start? The link focuses in the Gantenbrink "door" or "plug". Just as a quick run down, I see a few problems, the biggest and most immediate one being the alleged conduits that enter the top of the door and are supposed to carry wiring. I just cannot see it in any of the picture, can you? I do belive that part is completely made up, and the electrode claims are confusing me somewhat. perhaps someone else can see what Mr Dunn is trying to say. As far as I can see, he is describing a switch here
Both contacts are of the same composition. If he is talking about making electricity, you really need 2 metals, as they need to have different properties to act on tee H2o molecules, with H2O, the hydrogen atoms are on one side of the atom (about 105 degrees apart) which give the H2O molecule a "positive" and "Negative" side, when the medium, in this case suggested a weak hydrochloric acid solution, is introduced connecting the two, the atoms are drawn to one or the other. The anions (negatively charged ions) migrate to the anode, whilst cations (positively charged ions) migrate, to the cathode or positive electrode. Both contacts are copper. This suggests more of a contact "Make and Break" situation, or an ordinary switch. Yet in this diagram, I would think that Mr Dunn is suggesting that the "doors" are actually providing electricity, and I just cannot see how this is being achieved. He is calling the diagram a switch, but it looks to me like he is trying to draw, and explain a battery.
Now back to the above illustration, we can see that Mr Dunn nows the "door" is not waterproof. If the hydrochloric solution managed to wear and tear the shafts as suggested by Mr Dunn here:
Considering the erosion on the pins in the main shaft (the negative electrode having broken off in antiquity) and considering the extreme tapering that was more than likely caused by the rise and fall of a corrosive liquid, another significant conclusion that can be made is that these electrodes must have been replaced periodically.
One must ask, how did these markings survive? The acid solution should have eroded these completely away.
LINK - PYRAMID HIEROGLYPHS LIKELY ENGINEERING NUMBERS
It might be prudent to ask UM Member kmt_sesh to participate in this discussion, I doubt many on the forum could know more about the pyramids than that fellow. I am quite sure he could point out many, many more flaws than I have even in just the above example.
Cheers.
Edited by psyche101, 22 February 2012 - 12:03 AM.