Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
George Ford

How did Egyptians light inside of pyramids?

386 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Swede

Your failure to differentiate between chemical compounds and elements is remarkable.

Magnesium is far more conductive than calcium carbonate--the latter of which has no conductivity whatsoever.

Pure calcium carbonate in limestone has no conductivity or capacity to store ions for any period of time; the magnesium content in the inner stones as opposed to the finely-cut, nearly pure calcium carbonate casing stones, is the key factor. The magnesium is key.

The magnesium found in limestone is also generally in the form of a carbonate (MgCO3). As you note, CaCO3 has essentially no electrical storage capacity. The average percentage of MgCO3 in limestone generally falls in the range of roughly 2.5 to 4.5 percent. These combined figures would hardly be consistent with the generation/storage of your "millions of volts".

Edit: More Chris Dunn blather?

Edited by Swede

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jules99

Your failure to differentiate between chemical compounds and elements is remarkable.

Magnesium is far more conductive than calcium carbonate--the latter of which has no conductivity whatsoever.

Pure calcium carbonate in limestone has no conductivity or capacity to store ions for any period of time; the magnesium content in the inner stones as opposed to the finely-cut, nearly pure calcium carbonate casing stones, is the key factor. The magnesium is key.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

The magnesium found in limestone is also generally in the form of a carbonate (MgCO3). As you note, CaCO3 has essentially no electrical storage capacity. The average percentage of MgCO3 in limestone generally falls in the range of roughly 2.5 to 4.5 percent. These combined figures would hardly be consistent with the generation/storage of your "millions of volts".

Edit: More Chris Dunn blather?

I said that millions of volts could be accumulated. Or at least I thought I did... If I forgot that part I apologize. That's pretty important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

Limestone is a porous stone, and yes, calcium is a metal; calcium carbonate is not.

Neither is magnesium carbonate, AKA magnesite, or calcium magnesium carbonate, AKA dolomite, the primary forms in which it occurs in limestone, such as the mokattam.

Interesting that "fringe" sites have noticed these principals.

Not merely noticed it old thing, but repeated it in places nearly word for word.

http://harunyahya.com/en/Kisa_filmler_-_Mutlaka_izleyin/43656/The_secrets_hidden_in_the_pyramids_of_Egypt

http://rob-s.hubpages.com/hub/The-True-Purpose-of-the-Pyramids-of-Giza

I happened to learn physics from books, and in school; where did you learn it, on a website?

This theory actually isn't entirely mine either: my uncle first posited the thesis that the Great Pyramids were somehow electrical. I was intrigued, and asked my uncle's colleague at the college where he taught--a physics professor. He was fascinated, and stated quite plainly that the Great Pyramid is, based on simple physics, an excellent electrical system, similar to Wardenclyffe tower in function.

Are you a physicist? I'm curious.

Are you a geologist?

An electrician perhaps?

Geophysicist?

Appeal to accomplishment? Tsk.

What little I've learned came from the same sources. Are you questioning the validity of the papers cited? I for one question any source that doesn't know stone in itself acts as an insulator.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

The pyramids are built atop subterranean limestone aquifers, are they not?

Aquifers generate a current of natural, upward-flowing negative ions, which would thus be conducted through the magnesium-rich limestone of the pyramids. This would be largely contained within the pyramids too, as the limestone species used for the casing is significantly lower in magnesium, and thus would act as a sort of "insulator". As for the granite, as I have said, it is radioactive, and over time gives off radon gas--which serves to ionize the air and distribute additional ions to the surrounding stones. All this together, in the pyramidal shape, focuses all of the ions, the electrical charge, into the peak. As I'm sure we all know, the peak was originally capped with a golden capstone which has since been lost to time. Gold is the finest known conductor of electricity (apart from silver; however gold is favorable due to its remarkable resistance to corrosion), and would thus serve as a sort of "transmitter" of the huge quantities of ions being focusing into it. It is the same principal as was used by Nikola Tesla in his tower at Wardenclyffe--complete with the "air shafts", which are necessary to stabilize pressure in the ionized air and prevent premature discharge.

Of course, Tesla was an advocate of utilizing filament-less light bulbs which illuminated sheerly from the administration of wirelessly-transmitted AC electricity. Similar technology is described and depicted in the ancient cultures--and the Great Pyramids can be seen as a prime example of how such a technology might have functioned.

Is that plain enough for you?

A quicker way to say all of that would have been "magic."

For that matter, I notice you seem to be quick to retroactively change what you've said so that you aren't wrong.

No, no, of course you meant something entirely different. Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

Neither is magnesium carbonate, AKA magnesite, or calcium magnesium carbonate, AKA dolomite, the primary forms in which it occurs in limestone, such as the mokattam.

Not merely noticed it old thing, but repeated it nearly word for word.

http://harunyahya.com/en/Kisa_filmler_-_Mutlaka_izleyin/43656/The_secrets_hidden_in_the_pyramids_of_Egypt

http://rob-s.hubpages.com/hub/The-True-Purpose-of-the-Pyramids-of-Giza

Appeal to accomplishment? Tsk.

What little I've learned came from the same sources. Are you questioning the validity of the papers cited? I for one question any source that doesn't know stone in itself acts as an insulator.

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/abstract/PRB/v53/i24/p16247_1

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?

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://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2012/EGU2012-7517.pdf

http://www.americanelements.com/lsgm.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

A quicker way to say all of that would have been "magic."

For that matter, I notice you seem to be quick to retroactively change what you've said so that you aren't wrong.

No, no, of course you meant something entirely different. Right.

Am I "retroactively" changing my story? No.

Are you people trying so hard to discredit me that you intentionally misrepresent what I've said? Possibly.

Are you people genuinely misunderstanding what I've said? Probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

I said that millions of volts could be accumulated. Or at least I thought I did... If I forgot that part I apologize. That's pretty important.

No, it would not appear that you have utilized that term. To date you have utilized terms such as "electrical production" (post #109) and "store" (post #121). Without generation/storage, how can an electrical charge be "accumulated"?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

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

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?

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

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

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 1,340o 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oniomancer

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/abstract/PRB/v53/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?

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.

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://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2012/EGU2012-7517.pdf

http://www.americanelements.com/lsgm.html

So can calcium carbonate, AKA calcite:

http://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/13221/v16_p1_a7_Jackson_electrical_conductivity_calcite.pdf?sequence=1

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

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

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 1,340o 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte

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!!

I am well-aware of all this...

Really? Care to explain this?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swede

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 VL = 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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arbitran

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 VL = 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

There is no issue. Mistakes will happen. You are forgiven.

As for your calculations: thank you again for your effort and time.

:lol::tu:

Edited by questionmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.