<HTML>Goop Answers
Question: "Why didn't the limestone "goop" ooze into the cracks of the block beneath it."
Answer: This is covered in a chapter in the ebook Margaret Morris sent me. The chapter was written by an engineer. MM says he studied the properties of geopolymerized rock, its strengths, consistencies, molecular bonding action and ability to bond to aggregates, and the architectural features of the Great Pyramid, etc. According to this engineering study, in the chapter titled "Building With Geopolymers" the "goop issue" is eliminated by a goopless construction plan. The plan involves the use of partitions for making the core blocks (which blocks rest behind the packing stones, which are themselves behind the casing). The system this engineer designed, even if wooden molds were used, is gapless so there's no goop.
I don't think I should post the whole chapter here showing the simple gapless design and diagrams. Critics will have to read the book.
Anyway, they are not saying this plan is how the Egyptians built the GP, but the chapter gives a good idea of how the GP could have been built with geopolymer based on what is known.
When we look at the pyramid we see the packing blocks. These are not made in molds according to the plan for building with geopolymers set out in this engineering plan. These blocks had to be individually sculpted. They had to form the subtle concave faces of the GP that appear behind where the casing was (I don't know why the Egyptians made giant concave faces behind the casing but they did). So the point is these packing blocks were not made in molds -- so there's no goop involved here.
Question: Why is there gypsum mortar packed between the blocks? In other words, why wasn't the "goop" used?
Answer: I think you mean why was the "goop" (mortar) used?
Anthony assumes in his post that the gypsum mortar is "good old gypsum mortar." Davidovits has shown it is lime-gypsum mortar, a good quality geopolymeric mortar. Davidovits and Morris explain how to make this mortar in their book from 1988 and they point out that "good old gypsum mortar" has fallen apart when applied to the monuments in modern times. The original mortar has lasted 4,500 years where it remains intact. It's geopolymer, which is way more durable that "good old gypsum mortar."
Anyway, Lucas said this pink mortar was used to cushion blocks. This would make the GP more easily absorb earthquake stress. So the mortar was put there deliberately, and that means it would be put there no matter how the blocks were made.
Morris says Davidovits thinks that AEs used the mortar to allow for more rapid construction. In that scenario when one block did not cure fast enough AEs could start a new block next to it by putting some mortar on the original one -- that way the two blocks would not merge into one mass when the new one was being made.
Blocks merged into one big foundation will crack more easily than separate blocks. So AEs wanted individual blocks to help keep the monument stable. In their book they speak of the way long blocks are fitted over shorter ones in tiers measured at Giza and how this staggered construction design makes monuments more earthquake proof. It eliminates vertical joints which are stress lines. Their book has a photo of a European church that withstood the bomb blasts of WW II because of such staggered construction. Buildings all around it not made that way were devastated in the blasts.
So the main answers to question 2 are that 1) the mortar is there no matter how the blocks were made if Lucas's observations are relied on, 2) the mortar is used as separation devices in JD's scenario. Both could be right.
Sandy</HTML>
