385 replies to this topic

[Arbitran]

jules99, on 07 April 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Great Idea;
Have you made a working model or done any experiments with this sort of power generation? For myself, I would like to see something tangible, or a link to how this sort of system would function and generate electricity.

The work of Nikola Tesla at Wardenclyffe can be seen as an experimental reproduction of these principles. Of course, Wardenclyffe never got off the ground due to the financial loss from J.P. Morgan. However, the pyramids would likely not have had such restrictions (after all, they were completed).
I'll try to find a decent link. It might take a moment. I'll search for it now.

[Arbitran]

Swede, on 07 April 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

You may wish to actually read the content of the abstracts which you have presented. They hardly support your contentions. Note pressure, temperature, etc. Also, these are merely abstracts and do not present the final data in regards to conductivity.

.

I have read them, and of course they support my views. Why else would I have posted them as evidence?
The pressures within the pyramids can reach many millions of tons; these pressures also serve to accumulate thermal energy. It is worthy of note of course that magnesite and dolomite are excellent conductors and storers of thermal energy. Conversely, calcium carbonate is not.

Granted, they are abstracts, however they would not allow me to link the final papers.

Edited by Arbitran, 07 April 2012 - 11:24 PM.

[Swede]

Arbitran, on 07 April 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

I have read them, and of course they support my views. Why else would I have posted them as evidence?
The pressures within the pyramids can reach many millions of tons; these pressures also serve to accumulate thermal energy. It is worthy of note of course that magnesite and dolomite are excellent conductors and storers of thermal energy. Conversely, calcium carbonate is not.

Granted, they are abstracts, however they would not allow me to link the final papers.

Would you now be proposing that pressures within G1 reach some 3-6 x 10⁹ Pa? Documentation?

Additionally, would you be proposing that the internal temperature of G1 reaches some 1,340^o F.?

Also note the previously presented data in regards to mineral percentage composition.

Edit: Ran the math for you. Given that the original height of G1 is estimated to have been ~481 ft. and that the average density of limestone is ~ 135 lb/cubic ft., the maximum psi at the center of G1 would be ~ 462 lb/square inch. This figure would be reduced by the height of the massif as per Raynaud (2008).

.

Edited by Swede, 08 April 2012 - 12:42 AM.

[Oniomancer]

Arbitran, on 07 April 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

Of course I know that stone can insulate. Have you really ignored the importance of the magnesium compounds? I have finally learned how to link, I think: http://prb.aps.org/a...53/i24/p16247_1

Not ignoring it at all. Like swede said, the proportion is quite low, as evidenced by the fact that it's classed as a limestone and not a dolostone or dolomite proper. What you've got is a small amount of questionably conductive magnesium locked in a mass of calcite and other minerals. It's like having a bunch of power poles all strung out but no wire between them, same as the claims about piezoelectric granite. Even with water present, the flow will be negligible. And there's the matter of loss of the charged water and of open-air discharge since with or without magnesium, if there's enough porosity to allow capillary action, the water has access to the surface through what pores there are in the stone. It hinges on the question, how much water can the GP hold under normal conditions?

Quote

I read the pages you linked, and I must say, they are remarkably similar to mine and my uncle's thesis. I can assure you however that prior to your links, I had never seen them before. I was honestly surprised to see that essentially our theory had been reproduced.
The appeal to accomplishment was merely to determine your authority in discussing this subject. As I have said, I have relatively little expertise in the fields of physics and chemistry; but the same cannot be said of my uncle's colleague, can it?

Unfortunately, a scientific background does not preclude having weird ideas. I'm reminded of the physicist whose name escapes me who was a follower of either Aliester Crowley or Anton Levay.

Quote

I do not question the validity of your cited pages: only the interpretations of them you've tried to give. Of course there are varying degrees of conductivity in magnesium and calcium: but chemical compounds cannot be compared with base elements.
And in case it takes any more explaining: yes, dolomite and magnesite are electrically conductive:
http://meetingorgani...GU2012-7517.pdf
http://www.americane...s.com/lsgm.html

So can calcium carbonate, AKA calcite:

http://dalspace.libr....pdf?sequence=1

I see though in your second link that the magnesite needs to be doped to work as cell.

Edited by Oniomancer, 08 April 2012 - 12:29 AM.

[Arbitran]

Swede, on 07 April 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

Would you now be proposing that pressures within G1 reach some 3-6 x 10⁹ Pa? Documentation?

Additionally, would you be proposing that the internal temperature of G1 reaches some 1,340^o F.?

Also note the previously presented data in regards to mineral percentage composition.

Edit: Ran the math for you. Given that the original height of G1 is estimated to have been ~481 ft. and that the average density of limestone is ~ 135 lb/cubic ft., the maximum psi at the center of G1 would be ~ 462 lb/square inch. This figure would be reduced by the height of the massif as per Raynaud (2008).

.

Thank you for your effort. It is much appreciated.

[Arbitran]

Oniomancer, on 08 April 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Unfortunately, a scientific background does not preclude having weird ideas. I'm reminded of the physicist whose name escapes me who was a follower of either Aliester Crowley or Anton Levay.

Nor does an idea being perceived as "weird" preclude it from being correct.

I admit I have no particular expertise in these fields, but I happen to stand by the physics--which support the thesis.

[Swede]

Arbitran, on 08 April 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Thank you for your effort. It is much appreciated.

Kindly do not attempt to distort the data presented. You have stated  "The pressures within the pyramids can reach many millions of tons" (your post # 137).

The total mass of G1 has been calculated by various means to fall (at the most liberal) within  the range of 2.0 - 2.6 million tons. Given current understandings in regards to the massif and the rubble fill that are incorporated elements of the construction, the lower end of this spectrum would appear to be  the most probable. Thus, it is physically impossible for the pressures at any specific point to reach the level of "many millions of tons".

This factor, in addition the other data previously supplied, would hardly support the concept of lithic pressure/heat generated electricity. Not to mention the transfer of such.

.

Edited by Swede, 08 April 2012 - 03:11 AM.

[Arbitran]

Swede, on 08 April 2012 - 02:55 AM, said:

Kindly do not attempt to distort the data presented. You have stated  "The pressures within the pyramids can reach many millions of tons" (your post # 137).

The total mass of G1 has been calculated by various means to fall (at the most liberal) within  the range of 2.0 - 2.6 million tons. Given current understandings in  regards to the massif and the rubble fill that are incorporated elements  of the construction, the lower end of this spectrum would appear to be  the most probable. Thus, it is physically impossible for the pressures  to reach the level at any specific point down to the square inch level of "many millions of tons".

This factor, in addition the other data previously supplied, would hardly support the concept of lithic pressure/heat generated electricity. Not to mention the transfer of such.

.

Odd, the data I was given by my uncle stated that the Great Pyramid is approximately 6.5 million tons. And I did not say that those pressures within the pyramid would necessarily generate electricity. My original postulation dealt with the flow of negative ions from beneath the pyramid itself through the rock. I was merely demonstrating the physics of such a process.

[Swede]

Arbitran, on 08 April 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

Odd, the data I was given by my uncle stated that the Great Pyramid is approximately 6.5 million tons. And I did not say that those pressures within the pyramid would necessarily generate electricity. My original postulation dealt with the flow of negative ions from beneath the pyramid itself through the rock. I was merely demonstrating the physics of such a process.

It would appear to that your sainted uncle may not be the most credible of references.

As to your understandings of physics, more study would be recommended.

.

[Harte]

The_Spartan, on 07 April 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Do you actually Know??

The King's chamber is made up of Pink / Rose granite from Aswan 900km away. Yeah this is the only granite used in the construction of the pyramid. Granite is NOT radioactive. PERIOD!!

Arbitran, on 07 April 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

I am well-aware of all this...

Really?  Care to explain this?

Arbitran, on 07 April 2012 - 06:43 AM, said:

Do you actually know the materials used to construct the pyramids? The external coating (which is mostly gone now) is limestone. Much of the interior is granite.

Maybe you aren't too good with English.

Your sentence above implies an errant belief that a large quantity of the Great Pyramid is constructed of granite (which is only slightly more radioactive than limestone, by the way. Not that it matters.)

Harte

[Arbitran]

Swede, on 08 April 2012 - 03:21 AM, said:

It would appear to that your sainted uncle may not be the most credible of references.

As to your understandings of physics, more study would be recommended.

.

I will indeed study physics further.
I was in large part here relaying the information supplied to me by my uncle and his colleague--both college professors. I personally will believe a qualified physicist and Egyptologist on this.

[Arbitran]

Harte, on 08 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

Really?  Care to explain this?

Maybe you aren't too good with English.

Your sentence above implies an errant belief that a large quantity of the Great Pyramid is constructed of granite (which is only slightly more radioactive than limestone, by the way. Not that it matters.)

Harte

I have already clarified this misunderstanding. By interior I was referring to the chambers and passages. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the interior, meaning the chambers, and interior, meaning the inner volume. I apologize if this was confusing.

Edited by Arbitran, 08 April 2012 - 04:03 AM.

[Swede]

Arbitran, on 08 April 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

I will indeed study physics further.
I was in large part here relaying the information supplied to me by my uncle and his colleague--both college professors. I personally will believe a qualified physicist and Egyptologist on this.

In attempting to discern where your uncle derived his figure of 6.5, an error on my own part was discovered. My apologies.

Your uncle's figure would appear to be based upon the total volume of the feature, the highest possible density for limestone, and the assumption of a solid limestone construct throughout.

The volume of G1 is calculated to be 2,583,283 m³ (Lehner 1997:17).

The massif underlying G1 is estimated to have a minimum volume of 600,000 m³ (23% of total) (Raynaud, et. al., 2008:20).

Thus V_L  = 1,983,283 m³

Utilizing the minimum density for limestone and not accounting for the rubble fill and voids results in a limestone construct mass of 3.85 million tons.

Utilizing the average density for limestone and not accounting for the rubble fill and voids results in a limestone construct mass of 4.725 million tons.

Utilizing the maximum density for limestone and not accounting for the rubble fill and voids results in a limestone construct mass of 5.6 million tons.

Allowing for a conservative reduction in total mass of 5% due to voids and rubble fill, this reduces the above figures to 3.66, 4.49, and 5.32 respectively.

.

[Arbitran]

Swede, on 08 April 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

In attempting to discern where your uncle derived his figure of 6.5, an error on my own part was discovered. My apologies.

Your uncle's figure would appear to be based upon the total volume of the feature, the highest possible density for limestone, and the assumption of a solid limestone construct throughout.

The volume of G1 is calculated to be 2,583,283 m³ (Lehner 1997:17).

The massif underlying G1 is estimated to have a minimum volume of 600,000 m³ (23% of total) (Raynaud, et. al., 2008:20).

Thus V_L  = 1,983,283 m³

Utilizing the minimum density for limestone and not accounting for the rubble fill and voids results in a limestone construct mass of 3.85 million tons.

Utilizing the average density for limestone and not accounting for the rubble fill and voids results in a limestone construct mass of 4.725 million tons.

Utilizing the maximum density for limestone and not accounting for the rubble fill and voids results in a limestone construct mass of 5.6 million tons.

Allowing for a conservative reduction in total mass of 5% due to voids and rubble fill, this reduces the above figures to 3.66, 4.49, and 5.32 respectively.

.

There is no issue. Mistakes will happen. You are forgiven.
As for your calculations: thank you again for your effort and time.

[questionmark]

Arbitran, on 08 April 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

There is no issue. Mistakes will happen. You are forgiven.
As for your calculations: thank you again for your effort and time.

Edited by questionmark, 08 April 2012 - 10:03 PM.