Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
.
Thanks for the quote..... I got this book from the library this morning and as always I first look up diorite and schist and see how badly they mangle it..... wasn't at all surprised.

>Would you believe that
>Temple castigates Vyse for self-promotion?

Well, the sky is blue after all...... unlike the Lauer Sample that only had 0.2% Al2O3 in it when the zeolites (an alumino-silicate) were supposed to be squirting out on the surface.... I don't know what the colour of the sky is in that world, maybe the colour of lion. One can undrstand why it has to now be advanced super cement with only trace cement holding it together. Those cast blocks above were supposedly based on the anti-serendipitous and/or imaginary discoveries of the Lauer sample but with more than a lot more Al stired in for good effect...... Temple I would think knows that since I pointed it out to him a couple of years ago. Then on the other hand I also told, him that being such an expert on China and all, he really should understand how stone vessels can be carved considering how well the Chinese's carved them by hand from nephritic jade.......

>This seems, however, not to be a major part of the
>book. I don’t see how this fits in with Liritzis
>and OSL (and I can’t for the life of me imagine
>why Liritzis has teamed up with Temple).

In Liritzis et. al. (2008) the geopolymer pyramid claims are strongly criticized..... I am assuming that Liritzis didn't actually get his understanding of the subject directly from one of the five people in the world who really understand the "technology", because understandably Liritzis et. al. (2008) gets the convoluted mess wrong. Which then opens the door for Davidovits (2008) to criticize him in the typical way they have always done that.... insinuate academic incompetence. I remember a cement pyramid pundit who claimed to be in direct contact with Davidovits going on about Gauri, the well-known Giza geologist, indirectly supporting the geopolymer claims..... but when I pointed out that there was a sentence in his book that appears to be a very subtle jab at the validity of their claims.... suddenly it all changed and Gauri didn't understand the geopolymer theory, didn't know how to analyze the specimens properly, didn't know what he was doing. So very typical.......

I really love Temple (2010)..... like the bit on page 60 about a black sarcophagus being so radioactive it is kind of like a modern industrial gamma ray food preservator.... kind of reminds me of a pyramid power book I read back in the 80s in which a slice of wiener was preserved under a mini-pyramid tent. I remember a course in University on nuclear chemistry the Prof. brought in a lead box and pulled out an orange coloured plate from the 1950's and placing the Geiger counter about a foot away from the plate and it went off the scale..... some poor idiot though it was a good idea to sell plates glazed with uranium oxide. I really doubt that would have preserved the food someone was going to eat off of it much... maybe covered with a pop-up pyramid though. The other thing the nuke class was he placed the Geiger counter like right up against the cement wall of the classroom and got a fairly high signal off of that as well.... after all, there was granite fragments in the cement (it had to be right up against the wall, radon gas is the real problem associated with such as Liritzis et. al. (2008) points out). The uranium and thorium content of the sarcophagus was 2.51 ppm and 6.94 ppm respectfully (Liritzis et. al. 2008) within the range for the U anf Th content in Aswan granite measured in the Valley and Sphinx temple (Liritzis et. al. 2008), and I assume also for the Aswan granite in the King's Chamber too. Temple (2010) goes on insinuating no one really knows that the granite or whatever at Giza was radioactive harzard.... Surprising, considering they have monitored for radon levels in the GP!

[www.sciencedirect.com]

Then it continues on about this highly radioactive sarcophagus he apparently discovered was made of the rock dacite or whatever and after only a check of his definitive Lucas and Harris (1962) and Aston (1994) claims that no other Egyptian artifacts are made of such a rock. He seems to have completely missed Nicholson & Shaw (2000) that states that what is called Egyptian "porphyry" is usually andesite, but can be dacite in mineralogy. There really should be some Egyptian artifacts made of dacite in Egypt (although most would be Roman, since they are the ones who usually quarried porphyry). Dacite is the volcanic equivalent of granodiorite (similar primary mineralogy, but coarser-grained), or in Egyptology what is called "monumental black granite" from Aswan and was used for sarcophagi during the Old Kingdom, including Khafre's. I can't wait until someone points out that the granite on the Sphinx and Valley temple is natural (Liritzis et. al. (2008) after all it describes them as holocrystalline over and over again, not as a cemented crushed aggregate or whatever)..... but of course the geopolymer crowd have magically change the GP's granite to natural after so long claiming/insinuating it was a cement..... it's now carved with fire and water, after all copper chisels are too soft even for the limestone..... now Temple (c2013) got to explain how they got them up there without cranes! It appears the convoluted mess even alludes one of the few experts in the world..... oh dear, we have all seen what that means. There was no cement zeolites in the Lauer sample so he is in good company there...... irrespective of the fact that the old zeolite claims has also magically changed to something new now.

Davidovits, J. (2008) They built the pyramids. Geopolymer Institute, 288 p.

Aston, B.G. (1994) Ancient Egyptian stone vessels: materials and forms. Heidelberger Orientverlag, Heidelberg, 196 p.

Lucas, A. & Harris, J.R. (1962) Ancient Egyptian materials and industries. E. Arnold, London, 523 p.

Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw, I. (2000) Ancient Egyptian materials and techniques. Cambridge University Press, New York, 702 p.

Temple (c2013) in imagination

Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)