It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by DCFusionWhen I read the article, my suspicion was validated. However, I also think that it would not be impossible for Egyptians to have used concrete.
I would also be curious if rocks from the quarries have been tested. I'm not a mineralologist, but there are several places on earth with unique characteristics. Could the lime stone (concrete) blocks have been cut from such a location?
Originally posted by DCFusion
...However, I also think that it would not be impossible for Egyptians to have used concrete. Put simply, it's a mix of several ingredients that hardens to an almost rock like material. I would think that it would be conceivable that such a mixture could have be 'accidentally' discovered. ...
Originally posted by Umbra Sideralis
... after some time in something very hard and strong, gaining almoust rock caracteristics.
Originally posted by Byrd
This PDF mentions curing times of 7 days or more for a slab (house, I believe.)
www.nrmca.org...
Originally posted by jmlima
Originally posted by Umbra Sideralis
... after some time in something very hard and strong, gaining almoust rock caracteristics.
ermmm, that's concrete. Whatever time it is from, even the Roman concrete was like that, that's why you use conrete in the first place.
A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.
The stones also had a high water content—unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau—and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.
The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. “Therefore,” says Barsoum, “it’s very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block.”
More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.
Originally posted by Byrd
Yes, they know which quarries they come from. There's also notes (ostrika) mentioning deliveries of stone from those quarries.
Originally posted by Byrd
The curing time for a huge 2 ton block of concrete would have been ridiculously long. It took 2 days for a sidewalk out in front of my house to cure, and that's only 2 inches thick and only 2 feet by 3 feet.
This PDF mentions curing times of 7 days or more for a slab (house, I believe.)
www.nrmca.org...
Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
Good point.
An egg-shaped cavity marked by the arrow spans two massive blocks on the north side of Senefru's Bent Pyramid must have been formed when the blocks were cast around a small rock or debris that was present. Credit: Michel Barsoum, Drexel University