<HTML>Here's the real point. You keep avoiding the waste factor. It's critically important because the size of the quarries are measured and have been roughly compared to the size of the GP. They are each roughly the same volume! You don't have the liberty of assuming that waste is not critical to this issue so stop avoiding the problem.
Look, I realize that your reading in English is poor by the way you write. That's not your fault and I don't hold that against you so don't get me wrong on this. The problem is that you need to take much more time to concentrate on what is written in English so that you understand it. Otherwise, you waste people's time. People must be tired of seeing the same facts spelled out to you over and over and you can't get it. I Repeat: the waste factor is critical and it tears up your cutting theory.
Let me spell it out for you one more time in simple words.
1. Ask any limestone geologist and he or she will say it's normal for 1 in 4 blocks to break when quarrying with modern methods. That's beside the point because some blocks can be salvaged to make smaller bricks and slabs.
2. Ask anyone who runs a limestone quarry. Before blocks are quarried about 30 feet of waste rock is removed from the top level of the quarry. THIS FACT MUST BE CONSIDERED RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE GIZA QUARRIES. I WRITE THIS IN CAPITALS BECAUSE IT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
3. After all the 30 feet or so of junk rock are cleared away block cutting can begin.
4. Klemm showed and Arnold repeats that Old and Middle Kingdom quarries are covered by the marks of stone picks--not by trenches. There aren't enough trenches to account for the GP according to Petrie (quoted by Morris). The field of trenches at Giza shows a different technique than we see on the walls of the huge quarries--which are covered by the marks of pointed picks. This is why Arnold says he has no idea how the blocks could have been lifted from their beds based on a comparison between the quarry walls and the tools of Egypt.
5. But for the sake of calculating waste per your method, let's pretend that we can quarry a block by using flint picks to cut trenches.
6. Now remember that today a good quarry will have a waste of 30 % after the 30 feet of top junk rock are gone. An inferior quarry might have 50% waste after the top 30 feet of junk rock are gone.
7. Giza limestone is a poor quality. There would be a 50% waste (after the top 30 feet of junk rock are gone) even if chain saws were used. If you doubt that the quarries are poor read Aigner or Lehner who repeats Aigner. Aigner's report says that the quarries are much softer rock than the rock the GP stands on.
I REPEAT BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT: Today chain saws are used and the waste can still be 30 to 50 % after the 30 feet or so of junk rock are gone. Digging trenches around a block doubles the size of the waste per block depending upon the size of the block (the GP blocks are averaged at 2 and a half tons each--there's tremendous waste from digging trenches if we rely on this average).
8. Now add:
Add 30 feet of rock removed from the upper surface of the quarry.
Add at least 30 to 50 % waste rock from quarrying blocks. (The figure will be very high because making trenches is a great deal more wasteful than using chain saws that make clean slices down quarry walls.)
Add some breakage when shaping blocks even if some can be salvaged and turned into smaller blocks.
Go figure the percent of waste rock.
It's so high that more quarries have to be supposed. If they exist why is there no clear evidence of them? The known quarries are so obvious and the signs of quarrying with pointed picks are so clear! More quarries would have to be enormous and very evident.
Now for your question.
Again you've asked me if I work "for Geopolymer" which you mean in terms of a paycheck. The answer is no. I don't work for a paycheck and I don't work "for Geopolyner". I love good science. I can't stand to see it abused. Period.
I have answered your question so I expect you to answer mine unless you intend to stop this debate as you imply in the post to which this responds.
My questions:
1. How do masons dig trenches with pointed picks?
2. Where are the signs of millions of trenches at Giza?
3. If the AEs didn't use flints, did they use pointed copper picks?
4. Where did all the copper come from? I challenged you to cite a source showing a high copper yield from the Sinai or Nubia for the Old Kingdom. You didn't because you can't. You can't provide a source showing enough copper for shaping limestone blocks let alone quarrying them too. You can't provide a source showing enough copper for all the many tons of granite and other hard rock turned into blocks and other things - let alone for limestone.
I didn't present a book source for a limestone quarrying because my knowledge comes from real life experience. I don't ask you to take my word. Over and over I say get with a quarry foreman yourself. If you don't believe me get your workboots on and spend a few days out in the field. Or find a book that talks about quarry waste and not just methods.
Your theory is busted based on the above evidence but you can't admit it so you keep ducking the waste problem.
Keep avoiding the waste factor but it will do you no good. Logic is Logic!
You've no room to insult anyone and you're not fooling anyone who cares about science being done right. Your cutting theory isn't logical. Concrete is the only idea that makes good sense.
Sandy</HTML>
