Ralph's comments are in black type
Chris Dunn's comments are in red type
Dear Mr Chris Dunn
I am puzzled Mr Dunn, did I cross you in a previous life?
With respect to whether you crossed me in a previous life, my sense is that you
are somewhat put-out by my postscript in the previous post. Ian Lawton chided
me for this also, claiming that it was an ad-hominem attack. It was not ad-hominem
by any stretch of the imagination. To use an ad-hominem attack, as a debating
tool, one would refer to qualities or attributes of the opposition that have
no relevance or bearing on the issues being debated, but would stimulate negative
feelings about them in the listener's or reader's mind. Calling someone a womanizer
or an alcoholic would be considered ad-hominem.
While Lawton and Ogilvie-Herold promote themselves as having no expertise in
the subjects they debate in their book, using this claim to innocence to bolster
their claims of objectivity, I thought it was time that the readers knew the
credentials of those who were arguing these issues. You were unfortunate enough
to throw yourself in the fray at the time I was ready to do this. By claiming
Mensa membership, I was taking a leaf out of your book (excuse the pun) as you
make the same claim on your dust jacket. Ok, so the PS was a bit flippant. I
can change it if it would make you feel better. I think we should do away with
PSs anyway. In this computer age they are a bit anachronistic and obsolete.
It so happens that my tertiary education at college was as a Minerals Surveyor,
which certainly equips me to be able to detect and understand the consequences
of a plane of unconformity in a crystal (not that they are usually associated
with crystals). The difficulty here, is being able to understand why that unconformity
exists at the base of the vase's neck, without being able to get it under a microscope
- is it natural or man-made? Under such circumstances it is only sensible and
wise to use the cautionary conjugation of 'if' in the reporting - anything else
could be considered as unprofessional as writing a thesis based on second-hand
reporting. (photo to follow).
Regarding your comment, "anything else could be considered as unprofessional
as writing a thesis based on second-hand reporting." Correct me if I'm wrong,
but you seem to be insinuating that it was unprofessional to write Advanced Machining
in Ancient Egypt using Petrie's Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh as source material.
If so, you are saying that authors cannot use other author's research in formulating
ideas and constructing theories. I find your comment to be not only impractical
and restrictive, but also hypocritical. While your book Thoth: Architect of the
Universe does not contain a bibliography, you cite other's works in your notes
and references. Your book is also replete with dimensions of ancient cites, many
of which I assume you did not take yourself. I also noted in your book cover
that you are soon to publish Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs. What primary source
does one use to write a thesis about Jesus?
I understand and appreciate that we
all owe a deep debt of gratitude to Sir Flinders Petrie, however that does
not preclude his research from being subject to modern-day
critical analysis. You yourself have found Sir Petrie's reporting of the drill
core to be innacurate in some respects - subject to some exaggeration one might
say. I too have had my doubts on certain topics. His book, The Pyramids and
Temples of Gizeh, invariably quotes angles to the nearest second of
arc, when that is
plainly unjustifiable. A second of arc is an accuracy of 0.05 mm down a length
of 10m and so it was somewhat a shock to find that the descending passage in
the Khufu pyramid, for instance, was predominantly hacked out of the bedrock
with nothing more technical than an adze. I also did not notice any closure
figures for Sir Flinders site survey at Giza, which would give an indication
of the site
error. Incidentally I once laid out a runway at a gliding site; many people
claimed that I must have used a laser to get such accurate proportions
over such a distance,
but in truth I had just a piece of string and three sticks (I probably achieved
+/- 30 seconds of arc on a 300m strip).
Regarding Petrie. Petrie was a surveyor and recorded his instruments' readings
at the time he made the measurements. I believe it is unfair to criticize him
for this. As an engineer, I take any dimension that is recorded to the arc-second
or one that has more than two zeroes after the decimal point (more than one
for metric) with a pinch of salt. Though you are correct in pointing out the
impracticality
of using such a fine division of the arc, I don't believe that Petrie was proposing
that the ancient Egyptians were intentionally working to within an arc-second.
I'm sure, also, that anyone going back and re-measuring the Giza Plateau (including
Petrie) would find it difficult to replicate such a fine measure.
While the Giza Plateau is littered with artifacts distinctly cut using advanced
tools, it looks like you have bought into the copper adze theory also. Personally,
I don't buy it.
That said, it may surprise you Mr Dunn, but I actually approve of your putting
forward the high-tech drilling hypothesis - as a quick read of my book would
readily confirm. (I ultimately endorse the alien intervention line). However,
I do not wish to endorse the ultra-sonic drilling concept until all other avenues
have been explored, as I believe a simpler technique would have been taught
to the indigenous peoples.
A quick read of your book did not reveal to me your approval of my work. I
am, though, incredulous that you would endorse alien intervention, for which
there
is no evidence, and reject advanced machining as a practical method, for which
there is plenty of evidence. Moreover, I was not looking for your endorsement
of the ultrasonic drilling concept. You interjected your ideas into a debate
that was started by Ian Lawton, who, similarly situated, is a person from whom
I needed no endorsement. If my own peers leveled serious technical arguments
against me, I would be more troubled. As it is, after 15 years of discussing
Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt with professional engineers and machinists,
I have only had one claiming to be an engineer who debated the issue, though
he did not reveal much practical in-depth knowledge of machining in his writing.
Chris Ogilvie-Herald and Ian Lawton have done us a great service in opening
up this debate and getting some real in-depth analysis on these artifacts performed.
But what we still end up with is simply a core taken from an unknown tool,
that
aparently has scribed spiral marks on it (and on the work-piece that it was
taken from, if other the samples displayed are representative). From this meagre
evidence
one has to build a workable hypothesis. What struck ME about the samples displayed,
however, is that the base of the tool-cut did not appear to be perpendicular
to the tool, which would seem to preclude a circular action in the tool. The
high pressures required to sustain such an enormous feed-rate would also seem
to preclude a circular action (the forces required are huge). What is required
here, is a process that could still generate a helical mark, while not requiring
much force, and perhaps not producing such incomprehensible feed-rates.
Lawton's and Ogilvie-Herold's service to this debate, I agree, is inestimable.
Through their staunch orthodox naivet, they have done more to promote the validity
of advanced machining in ancient Egypt than any alternate theorist could have.
I'm looking forward to debating further with them, their ideas on the purpose
and function of the Great Pyramid.
Considering core #7 was broken out of the hole, I don't find the unevenness
of the base of the core to be remarkable at all. I would also like to point
out
that huge forces on a thin walled copper tube that spirals into solid granite
at 1/8 inch per revolution, without discrete oscillatory motion, would result
in the copper tube collapsing and being wrung like a towel. So you are on the
right track there.
As an amateur engineer myself, what I would suggest is not a rotational action,
but an oscillatory motion based on a fixed helical stanchion (large threaded
studding). This is a similar argument and arrangement to your ultrasonic hypothesis,
but using a slightly lower level of technology. (essentially the same equipment
as an old-fashioned wine-press).
The tool is simply attached to the helical stanchion so that it can be turned
both ways to rotate itself either up or down the stanchion. (The stanchion
being attached to the work-piece with some frame-work or other) As the tool
is rotated
downwards (down the helix on the stanchion), it hits the work-piece to be drilled
with both a downwards and a rotational force, applying both the requirements
for effective drilling. However, in this arrangement the helical groove generated
on both the core and the work-piece is determined not by the feed-rate of the
tool, but by the pitch of the helix on the stanchion, which is guiding the
tool. To achieve a cut of one helix-pitch (the distance between the grooves),
the operator
can rotate the tool up and down thousands of times if necessary, with the tool
following the same path and the same grooves each time.
Perhaps, as a qualified engineer, you might care to comment on this brief thesis,
as it seems to me to produce all the requirements for drilling and all the
results that we find on these ancient pieces of tube-drilling.
a. The rotation of the tool provides the abrasive action to the work-piece.
b.
The threaded stanchion forcing the tool downwards provides the required pressure
to the drill-bit (if briefly).
c. The tool bit can mark the core and
work-piece, but since its travel is constrained by the helical stanchion,
the same groove is merely reinforced time after time.
d.
The base of the cut can afford to be uneven, as the motion is not fully
rotational - it can be uneven by as much as the helix pitch is wide.
e. The
different pitches in the grooves on different cores are now explained
not by differing feed rates, but by differing helixes on the stanchions.
Thus
the
huge pitch in the Turin samples can be simply explained - a different
stanchion
was used with a large pitch on it.
f. With a suitably heavy fly-wheel
attached to the rotating tool, I would imagine that just one man could apply
sufficient pressure on the drill-bit to cut even
the
hardest of stone.
g. The action of the tool is exactly the same as with
ultrasonic drilling, except with much more rotational force applied. One
of the weaker areas of
the ultrasonic concept is that little force is applied to the tool itself
and so the production
of
helical grooves on the core has to be explained in less convincing
ways.
(My ex-father-in-law owned an engineering shop that used spark-erosion
drilling, the equipment is essentially the same as that used for ultrsonic
drilling).
h. How the ancient Egyptians could have constructed such
a device is
another matter, but it has to be an easier contraption than something
using ultrasonics.
I can unequivocally state that your theory is impractical
and would not produce Petrie's core #7. Of several, here are two arguments
against
it.
1.. Referring
back to the experiment with the diamond-dressing tool I referred to in my
report on my visit to the Petrie Museum. To scratch a groove .005
inch deep in this
same manner would require multiple passes. However, if the grooves were the
result of multiple passes, I would expect them to be deeper at the top. Remarkably,
the grooves on core #7 are equally as deep at its base as its top.
2.. Though the grooves are helical, there is some waviness to them in
their travel. Multiple passes would necessitate that the cutting point
follows
the same groove
with accuracy and replicate this random waviness.
I could build an easier contraption than one employing ultrasonics or some
lower frequency vibratory device. Not confident that I would achieve success
with it,
though, I will defer that expense to the debunkers. Machining materials is
in my blood, and everything I know tells me that we must go beyond the primitive
and simplistic methods to produce core #7. Also, we must not forget context.
This core, exists within the context of other manufactured items that are
exponentially more impressive and evident of hi-tech. Within the context
of these other artifacts,
proposing ultrasonics is not the stretch it would be if the core were an
isolated artifact.
As you say, it would be interesting to try and reproduce samples with the different
techniques that have been proposed so far in this debate, to see if any match
the real items. An interesting and rewarding project for someone, I am sure.
Finally, can I point out to readers that this is not a personal attack on Mr
Dunn or his works, it is simply a small contribution to the kind of in-depth
discussion and debate that is required to ultimately find the truth.
I did not take your comments as a personal attack on me. Nor are my comments,
now and in the past, a personal attack on you. Truth, I have found, is a mercurial
commodity that comes in many guises. It helps if we look at truth, not with
a fixed affectionate stare, but a darting suspicious glance. It is the ephemeral
nature of truth that, I believe, has elicited such a negative reaction by alternate
researchers towards Giza: The Truth. For were not Lawton and Herold claiming
ownership of truth?
On a lighter side, perhaps we should heed the cynical parody
of Aldous Huxley, who stated, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad." And
not take ourselves so seriously.
Cheers
Ralph Ellis
Edfu Books
P.S. There were many other drill cores in the draws underneath the cabinet
in the Petrie museum, were these also checked for spiral grooves?
Not by me.
P.P.S. Apart from building concours classic motorcycles for a hobby, I would
like to point out that the professional pilots licence and the 'type-ratings'
for the various prop and passenger-jet aircraft I have flown all require an
intimate knowledge of practical engineering, be it mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic
or
electrical. The vision here is perhaps of a neat cockpit with starched white
shirts, but my apprentiship into aviation was on the DC3 and DC6 aircraft,
of 1945 and 1958 vintage respectively. One does not fly night-winter operations
around Europe in such aircraft without getting one's hands dirty (and one's
feet
very cold).
I have a profound respect for anyone who gets their hands dirty in the execution
of their profession.
Best Wishes,
Chris
Dear Mr Dunn,
You appear to dislike both criticism and praise - a hard customer to satisfy
I presume.
Let's forget the personality clashes (and my return attempt at flippant humour).
The crux of this issue is what kind of machining abilities were at large some
four or five millennia ago, yet this aspect of your reply is somewhat lacking
in detail. Please correct me if I am wrong, but your rejection of my proposal
seems to be based more on my lack of professional qualifications in the field
than any lack of possible technical success that my proposal might have. You
also seem to have preconceived notions about what you want to find, as you
say "we must go beyond the primitive and simplistic methods". But does this
not cloud one's judgment?
Your rejection centers on the evenness of the depth of the grooves created
and their apparent 'waviness', but this seems to be based on a preconception
that the grooves were made by the drill-bit tips (some kind of jewels no doubt).
But I would have to agree with your concept that the taper on both the core
and the work-piece is caused by the drill tube being abraded away, yet such
a scenario would tend to indicate that an abrasive slurry was used rather than
jewelled tips to the tool (otherwise the tip would have to be continuously
re-jewelled as it was worn away).
Thus it is likely that the grooves on the core were made by the grit in the
slurry, and if a wavy line was initially made for some reason then each particle
of grit would naturally tend to follow the same course and reinforce the wavy
line. Once the drill-bit had passed deeper into the work-piece, the extra gap
between the drill-tube and the core (caused by the taper in the tube-drill,
just as you mention) would ensure that no more abrasion of the upper levels
takes place - thus all the grooves would be of a roughly even depth.
In contrast, you say in your web-site that the ultrasonic drill-bit hypothesis
produced the spiral grooves on the core in exactly the same way as I have described
with my 'wine-press' mechanism - by using the same 'nut and screw' feed device
to advance the drill bit. How in this case does the ultrasonic drill-bit create
wavy lines and an even groove depth? - especially as the ultrasonic drill-bit
is not advanced with any great force.
Finally, you say that the technique I suggested is impractical. Thus, if I
understand you correctly, it is not impossible. But since it is such a simple
idea, is not slightly less impractical that supposing that the pharaohs invented
(of their own accord) a piezo-electric oscillator? Perhaps any professional
engineers out there would like to comment on these ideas, or join the debate...
Best regards
Ralph Ellis
P.S. For the uneven base of the cut in the work-piece, I was not referring
to core No7, but the excellent cast of a work-piece that still had the core-stump
inside it.
P.P.S. I note that you believe that there is no evidence for an alien intervention
in mankind's history, and then subsequently propose that the ancient Egyptians
had machining techniques that were in advance of a civilisation that can send
probes out into interstellar space. An interesting point of view, it is axiomatic
that the world is often just as we wish to see it.
P.P.P.S. As I endorse the ancient alien visitation concept, I am not adverse
to there being some very advanced techniques available in the very distant
past (like machining and lifting 500 tonne stone blocks). The caveat to this,
is that I believe that any techniques that survived into more recent eras (techniques
that were taught to the indigenous population) would have to have been as simple
as possible. I have seen evidence for both recent and ancient drilling in Egypt.
Statement by Ralph Ellis, for Edfu Books,
Replies by Christopher Dunn.
Website designed by Artifice
Design
|
