| Author | Post |
|---|
Paul Ferguson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1538 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 20th, 2014 02:33 pm |
|
This one also is strictly for the record:
“Equally surprising in the analysis of the blue pigment in the Giza Plateau Sample 4 is the presence of approximately two percent weight of elemental (metallic) barium not combined as a chemical compound. Elemental barium is not normally found in its uncombined elemental form on earth (emphasis mine). One can only speculate on this surprising result.”
http://disinfo.com/2014/01/testing-blue-ancient-egyptian-alchemy/Attached Image (viewed 308 times):
|
Alexander Guthrie Stewart
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 192 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 21st, 2014 02:11 pm |
|
Indeed, one can only speculate, never actually do proper research into the what, why and how of the pre-dynastic egypt. Honestly, pyramidiots annoy me because they blow up perfectly acceptable results into massive big stories bolstering their pet project "Nobody knows how it got there so it must be aliens/ telekinesis/ sound waves that did it."
I am an actual materials scientist by training and experience, albeit not a massively experienced or eminent one, and the analysis as explained seems pukka. But I want more info on the elemental barium thing, where it was found (sealed within a glaze would prevent oxidation obviously) and what checks had been carried out to ensure the oxidation thing was correct, because SEM-EDX and XRF are not that accurate, they require careful calibration and are vulnerable to issues to do with oxygen, sulphur, carbon etc which are not detected by most XRF's.
|
Paul Ferguson
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1538 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 21st, 2014 02:39 pm |
|
Alexander Guthrie Stewart wrote:
Indeed, one can only speculate, never actually do proper research into the what, why and how of the pre-dynastic egypt. Honestly, pyramidiots annoy me because they blow up perfectly acceptable results into massive big stories bolstering their pet project "Nobody knows how it got there so it must be aliens/ telekinesis/ sound waves that did it."
I am an actual materials scientist by training and experience, albeit not a massively experienced or eminent one, and the analysis as explained seems pukka. But I want more info on the elemental barium thing, where it was found (sealed within a glaze would prevent oxidation obviously) and what checks had been carried out to ensure the oxidation thing was correct, because SEM-EDX and XRF are not that accurate, they require careful calibration and are vulnerable to issues to do with oxygen, sulphur, carbon etc which are not detected by most XRF's.
Hi Alexander,
Thanks for that. Presumably the Ancient Egyptians would have had to have had an understanding of electrolysis to have separated barium oxide into barium and oxygen - this would have been 4500 years before Sir Humphry Davy. I would be interested in hearing your views on the contents of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQplyOC5uW4
|
Alexander Guthrie Stewart
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 192 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 22nd, 2014 11:00 am |
|
Ohh, the Giza pyramid as battery idea! Wait, it's even odder than that.
WEll, the first question, where do they get all the water from? It's not like the Giza plateau is right by the Nile, it's on the edge of the desert and the pyramids are at a higher point. Then, it hasn't said why you would expect electrolysis at the twi different rocks; I don't see rocks being very effective at electrolysis, even if pressure does do such things, but then why is it not much known at deep lakes and reservoirs? I'm pretty sure he's massively underestimating the mixing that would occur in the King's chamber, even if the H2 and O2 could actually make its way through the rock in enough of a concentration to do anything.
So I'm not convinced.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in Egypt, there's lots of other pyramids showing changes and improvements in methods of building pyramids, quite apart from any uses for electrolysis.
There used to be the idea that central American cultures had electrolysis, because they had artefacts with a thin gold layer that, it was claimed, could only have been produced by electrolysis. An archaeologist 10 or 20 years ago showed that was wrong, what actually happened was that by rubbing a gold alloy with acidic plant juices you remove the non-gold metals, then you polish the remaining gold up, consolidating it. Repeat a few times, and you end up with a very thin layer of nearly pure gold. They had a lot of cunning techniques back then, based on some poor sod doing repetitive tasks for a long time.
It would be interesting to know more about the fragment of pottery with barium in it, but speculating much further without knowing where it even came from would be silly.
|
Alexander Guthrie Stewart
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 192 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 22nd, 2014 07:13 pm |
|
Oops, have I just outed myself as a hyper sceptic who toes the party/ conspiracy line when it comes to ancient artefacts and methods? 
|
Current time is 09:42 am | |
|
|
|
