Re: Scientist Says Concrete Was Used in Pyramids

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 00:59:50 +0100, firstname@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian)
wrote:

Archae Solenhofen <solenhofen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I will ask again... what evidence do you have the in situ unweathered
rocks of Member II behave this way?

Unweathered... I suppose you never read Davidovits book's? But I did my
homework.

According to Davidovits, the rock is artificially weathered.

Yes, "artificially weathered" afterwards.... I'm talking about what
one starts with originally (i.e. freshly exposed unweathered rocks in
a quarry). That is what disaggregates (i.e. weathers). Weathering
converts a solid rock to detritus to that it can be eroded.

It's not
simply soaked overnight in clearwater.

Actually, what I said was "overnight or whatever"... it's Morris
(1993) who says "overnight" on page 365.

It is soaked then dry in cycles
until complete disagregation.

I see, I hope your not saying that one soaks and dries it many times
and on the magical last cycle "poof" it complete disaggregates all at
once as it dries... that would be really amazing!!! A "complete
disaggregation" really depends on the arbitrary size and surface area
of the sample one chooses to use, after all, it could be just one
cycle for a small chunk of weathered detritus, sitting on the surface
for hundreds of years, or many 100 millions of cycles for something
the size of the Giza Plateau (if its present erosion rates are any
indication)... "overnight or whatever" is completely adequate to
describe timeframe for this claimed process. After all, it did not
seem to have too much of a problem in that NOVA program for soaking it
overnight; didn't appear to even need to be dried afterwards
either.... even more amazing!!!

It is a very similar process than ASTM D
4843 Standard Test Method.

Considering how susceptible to salt weathering the limestone of the
Sphinx enclosure is (Gauri 1981, Gauri 1984, Gurai 1990, Yerrupragada
et. al. 1993, Gauri et. al.1995, Gauri & Bandyopadhyay 1999), I doubt
it. There is no evidence of any substantial clay in the rocks either,
especially montmorillonite (which is the clay mineral that expands
through hydration sufficiently to be a weathering mechanism in
limestones (Gauri & Bandyopadhyay, 1999). Care to give us some
geological studies of unweathered natural limestone that actually
behaving with this incredible 1-3 cycles-to-sediment weathering
mechanism. If it can be replicated in an ASTM test there really should
be no reason why it does not operated to some degree as a natural
weathering mechanism. Remember, it has to involve only kaolinite with
its low water absorption property (Ollier, 1969). It's either that or
we are just left with the magical-imaginary rock of Giza that behaves
this way (for no apparent reason other then to make the geopolymer
claims possible)?

For rocks of member II, one to three cycles
of soaking/drying are necessary,

And just which sample of Member II bedding was tested to come to this
conclusion, and the reference to the source that did this experimental
research, please?

I noticed just a single cycle has entered the discussion again.... so
much for the implied multiple "cycles" assertion above. Don't really
see why it needs to be dried out to disaggregate if only one soaking
in needed.

depending on the composition of the
layer (See my comment about the clay ratio below).

You forgot to mention the volume of rock and its surface area, which
really seem to be another of the key factors in determining just how
may cycles are needed to disaggregate all of it.

So the rocks was actually weathered.

Yes, your claiming unweathered rock was weathered to disaggregate
it.... I already understood that, it's implied by the term
"disaggegate" in a geological context.

One would think the solution-widen joints in Member II rocks have been
soaked and dried thousand and thousands and thousands of times during
every major rain event sufficiently to produce surface runoff after
the flooding of the Nile valley by the Mediterranean Sea during the
Pliocene (it's certainly enough to produce dissolution so there really
isn't any reason why its should not also be increasing the rates of
weathering by clay hydration as well). The rocks did not disintegrate
to any major degree over millions of years of potential exposure, and
there is no reason why they would start to disintegrate now in
anything other than geological timescales (and for main reasons other
than cyclic hydration of kaolinite). Please provide any geomorphologic
evidence to support certain limestone's susceptibility to the presence
of water and clay hydration? This 1-3 cycles-to-sediments would be a
ridiculously fast weathering mechanism even in a geological context.
There should be overwhelmingly clear evidence of such with increased
weathering and subsequent erosion where it suppose to occur (i.e. the
"good one")..

I asked you if you were referring to Harrel and Penrod because they
published in Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 41, pp. 358-363
(1993) that they soaked rock to check if it was disagregating in water.
They report it did not after several week of soaking.

I was not referring to that portion of the paper when I mention
Harrell and Penrod (1993) in this discussion.

But in Table 1, they also report that none of their samples came from
Gisa!

And I do see the Lauer sample listed there, which is why I mentioned
Harrell and Penrod (1993). What I do not see is Harrell and Penrod
(1993) mentioned in Barsoum et. al. (2006). Surprising, after all it's
the same specimen tested in both papers and both used EDS. You think
Barsoum et. al. (2006) would have included it since it did thing they
should have done to back up their EDS claims, like for example XRF,
XRD, TGA, and optical petrography.

So the rocks they tested were not the good one. Very annoying...

What... like the imaginary 12-foot thick "good one" that Morris (1994)
claimed exists? If I have not already made it clear... it does not
exist anywhere at Giza. Which is why I have to keep asking over and
over for someone to actually identify it to me.

Here are some photos of wetting of limestone at the Sphinx enclosure
(first 2 only: #1 SW corner, #2 NW hind leg visible).... It's quite
clear that the surface of the enclosure gets saturated every once and
a while, even in today's climate, let alone 17,000 to 8000 years ago
when the climate was wetter (Butzer, 1976). Notice all those
macroporosity joints? Not much of that claimed "1-3 cycles to
sediments" working there as a weathering mechanism, even in the most
susceptible beds to weathering... I am surprised the rocks are still
there. Poof - Poof - Poof - gone....

http://www.hallofmaat.com/read.php?1,334647,334664#msg-334664
Photographs by Frank Doernenburg (http://www.fdoernenburg.de/)

So much for this ridiculously quick wet/dry forced weathering
cycle....

Especially when you consider that it is the sole paper, based on
experiments, that says the rocks of member II do not disaggregate ...

It's quite clear they do not... otherwise they would have been eroded
away a long time ago. They are not susceptible to disaggregation due
to direct water exposure. That is quite clear from the degree of
geomorphology on the Giza Plateau.

You claimed many times that the rock does not contain much clay, and the
silt/sand fraction is quartz only.

I don't need to claim anything.... it is clearly stated in Gauri
(1984) and & Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999).

You notably mention that Klemm and Klemm (1993) are supporting this
view. I quote:
"This is also supported by Klemm and Klemm (1993)
petrographic work on the rocks of the Member II quarries as well."
However, I did not find it in their book, written in German. There is
nowhere any mention of any analysis of sand+silt+clay fraction, neither
on Member II quarries. Could you give me the exact page number you're
referring to? I'm afraid there nowhere to be found.

I did not say there was sand+silt+clay analysis in Klemm and Klemm
(1993). I stated that petrographic work supports the rocks of Member
II have very little kaolinite. It was my understanding that Klemm and
Klemm (1993) obtained specimens from the Cheope quarry directly SW of
the Sphinx (seen in figure 52) for whole rock chemical analysis and
that specimen petrographic work was done and they were not identified
as kaolinitic limestone. Since apparently you have the book handy and
can read German, care to tell us how geopolymer mixtures replicate
something as sensitive to clastic sedimentation as whole rock Sr/Mg,
Sr/Rb, Zn/Cu/Pb, Mn/Co/Ni trace element ratios? They after all use the
trace element and microscopic examination to identify the quarries
from the collected specimen of core masonry from the GP. Rather
amazing how the ancient Egyptians were able to do that so convincingly
by just mixing stuff up in a pit and slapping it in a mold! The fact
these rocks contain very little kaolinite is even supported by Barsoum
et. al. (2006) who didn't appear see much clay either in their
supplied "quarry" specimens...

Then I would like to come back to the Table 2 in Gauri (1984). I guess
that the amount of clastic material composition was determined by
sedimentation. If this is the case, and also with other methods
involving water, it becomes obvious for the experts that the values
found for clays are too low, i.e. the values for silt too high.

What experts might those be? I hope your not now trying to assert into
this discussion that Gauri does not know what he is doing....

This is
because of the results from Table 1 that lists the amount of the soluble
salts. You'll find in the book "An introduction to clay colloid
chemistry, for clay technologists, geologists and soil scientists" by H.
van Olphen, Interscience Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, 1963, following
statements:
Page 8-9 :
"Particle interaction : ...The pictures changes completely when a small
amount of salt - a few tens of one percent - is added to the clay
dispersion. The particles begin to stick together upon collision and
agglomerates grow in the suspension, as shown by Figure 6. When the
salt-containing suspension is observed with the naked eye, the
agglomerates appear as flocks which settle rather quickly... This
phenomenon is called flocculation or coagulation.."

Page 17 : C. Flocculation (particle agglomeration)
"As mentioned before, flocculation, or the agglomeration of particles,
occurs when salt is added to the stable sol..... The agglomeration of
particles is an irreversible process; the particles are unable to
disengage spontaneously as fast as or faster than they associate... "

I guess you have noticed the sentence : a few tens of one percent. Well,
what happens when, like in Table 1 in Gauri (1984), the amount of
soluble salts is in the range of 1 to 5 percent? We get a wonderful
flocculation of clay particles greater than 2 microns, i.e. the
formation of silt particles. Consequently, the amount of clays is much
higher in the limestone than the values listed in Table 2 in Gauri
(1984).

Gauri did XRD on the silt fraction and clearly states that only quartz
was detected (Gauri & Bandyopadhyay, 1999).

"X-ray diffraction of sand and silt fraction revealed the presence of
quartz only." Page 198 in section "9.3.2 Clastic minerals" for the
same tested rocks of Gauri (1984). Can't be any clearer than that....
no clays, no salts .... only the presence of quartz detected.

You also need to understand how silt and clay fractions are separated
from carbonate rocks for analytical testing, like XRD. The soluble
salts are leached out if the rock first. As well, the insoluble
material at a point in the sample preparation is soaked in water for 6
hours to separate the silt and clay fraction through suspension. Any
of the insoluble residue from this "wonderful flocculation" that may
or may not have even existed is now part of that small clay fraction
already measured and clearly stated in Table 2 of Gauri (1984).

As for the leaching of salt from specimens... I notice Barsoum et. al.
(2006) do not mention that that was done to the Lauer sample for
display purposes (Morris 1993).

Let us come back now to your sentence :
"Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999), tell us on page 198 that X-ray
diffraction of the sand and silt fraction of the rocks indicates only
quartz being present."

This means that, according to Table 2 of Gauri (1984), with only one
exception, the layer 3ii, the concentration of SiO2 in the Sphinx rock,
ranges from 4 to 25 per cent. Your quotation is either wrong, or
incomplete.

No it's correct... the presence of quartz only was detected by XRD for
the sand and silt fraction.

Because I do not have access to Gauri & Bandyopadhyay
(1999), I would be very grateful if you could provide a much larger
quotation.

The quotation above is clear.

As a matter of fact, one knows, from all analysis published
so far on the chemical composition of Giza limestone, that the amount of
SiO2 is in the range of 4-5 per cent, maximum.

Really, can you provide a source for that claim and it should be from
Member II rocks and not from some other Member on the Giza Plateau?
Gauri (1984) & Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999) clearly states that beds
of Member II in the Sphinx enclosure contain a range of 2.1-25.37%
sand- and silt-sized clastic grains with only quartz detected through
XRD. I should point out that only bed portion 1i has a sand and silt
fraction of 25.37%, and the rest are in the range of about 2.1-8.56%
(and that high value is for bed 2i, another weak bed, the rest of the
beds are consistent with your above assertion). Morris (1993) did not
seem to have a problem with this 25.17% silt fraction value, of course
she claimed the bed portion was 12 feet thick and may contain 5-10%
kaolinite at the time in some vain attempt to assert this elusive
water disintegrating limestone. These rocks have solution-widened
joints and shallow water drainage channels on the floor of the
enclosure... The unweathered rocks do not disintegrate in water in
some soak/dry cycle in anything other than geologic timescales. The
main reason why the rocks of the Sphinx enclosure are weathered over
the last 4500 years is salt weathering, not clay hydration.

Some hard limestone may
have up to 9-12 per cent SiO2, especially those constituting the casing
stones and statues, yet these limestones are not found in the Giza
bedrock. They come from another place.

It's clear you do not understand how the Member II limestone formed or
what it is in terms of carbonate lithology. The Member II deposit was
laid down in a calm water lagoon between the original shoreline
located to the west of the Sphinx's present location and a reef
located to the east (Gauri & Bandyopadhyay 1999). It is about 10 m
thick, and contains 7 beds of limestone which are about 1 to 2 meters
in thickness, becoming (with the exclusion of bed 5) progressively
thinner the higher in the stratigraphy they are located. The limestone
beds exhibit a cyclothemic pattern of sedimentation (Guari 1984). This
pattern occurs when the amount of clastic (i.e. those derived from
terrestrial sources washed in by rivers) and marine sediments vary
rhythmically within each bed during sedimentation due to a change in
conditions from somewhat turbid to calm seas. As a result, the bottom
portion of the first 6 beds are marly containing a higher
concentration of clastic sediments (Guari 1984). Halite, gypsum, and
hematite are also more prevalent in the lower portion of the bed. This
grades into the upper allochemical portion of each bed (i.e. richer in
sand to silt sized grains of carbonate shell fragments (allochems))
and also contains more large shells. The decrease in clastic sediments
is reflecting a trend towards calmer sea activity during the original
deposition of sediments in the upper portion of each bed, and as a
result, a purer, harder limestone is formed. The bottom 6 beds have
been subdivided into the lower marly portion named with the subscript
i and the upper allochemical portion named ii. Overall, the amount of
clastic sediment decreases towards the top of the member. This also
reflects a general trend toward a calmer sea environment over the time
of deposition of Member II in the lagoon. As a result, beds 1 to 3 can
be considered sparse biomicrites (a limestone with < 10% allochem) and
the upper 4 beds are packed biomicrites (a limestone with >10%
allochem).

By the way. You still don't comment much on Barsoum's evidences from
their microstructure analysis. So, can't you refute their evidences?

Why should I? It appears to me that Barsoum et. al. (2006) do not know
what weathered limestone is from their Fig. 6b. This photo clearly
shows severely weathered, case-hardened blocks exposed to about 600
more years of direct atmospheric weathering than the ones in Vyse's
hole, thus the difference in their appearance (which is asserted in
the paper to be the result of geopolymer and natural rock differences
rather than weathering). Kind of puts into question whether or not
they are looking at unweathered limestone samples collected specially
with this in mind (kind of hard to do unless considerable effort and
planning is put into it by someone who knows the difference between
unweathered and weathered in situ samples). Much of the outer surface
of the GP is considerably weathered (Emery 1960), so unless they are
cutting samples from unweathered blocks, they are most likely picking
up detritus that litters the surface which is weathered. Descriptions
like "most of the specimens were easily friable" in the caption of
Fig. 2 for OC flakes does not sound at all like fresh pyramid block
samples. Weathered limestone should be significantly altered from
their original unweathered state. So it's not surprising they have
interesting mineralogies if this is what they are testing. As for the
Lauer sample, since there is nothing really that new in Barsoum et.
al. (2006) that contradicts the more extensive study by Harrell and
Penrod (1993), it's quite clear it's still not a geopolymer either.

Butzer K.W. (1976) Early hydraulic civilization in Egypt. The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 134 p.

Emery, K.O. (1960) Weathering of the Great Pyramid. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, 30, 141-143.

Gauri, K.L. (1981) Deterioration of the stone of the Great Sphinx,
NARCE, 114.

Gauri, L. (1984) Geological Study of the Sphinx, Newsletter American
Research Center in Egypt, 127, 24-43.
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=43

Gauri, K.L., Sinai, J.J & Bandyopadhyay, J.K. (1995) Geologic
weathering and its implications on the age of the Sphinx.
Geoarchaeology, 10, 119-133.

Gauri, K.L. & Bandyopadhyay, J.K. (1999) Carbonate stone: chemical
behavior, durability, and conservation. Wiley, New York, 284 p.

Morris, M. (1993) How Not to Analyze a Pyramid Stone - The Invalid
Conclusions of James A. Harrell and Bret E. Penrod. Journal of
Geological Education, 41, 364-369.

Morris, M. (1994) Response (to Harrell in letters to the Editor).
Journal of Geological Education, 42, 198-203.

Ollier, C. (1969) Weathering. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 304 p.

Yerrupragada, S.S., Tambe S.S., & Gauri, K.L. (1993) Rock for erosion
control. American Society for Testing Material, Philadelphia, STP
1177.

Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@xxxxxxxxxxx)

Merry christmas.

.

Relevant Pages

  • A Natural Compass - Rock Cracks
    ... A Natural Compass: Rock Cracks Point North ... be a kind of compass in the alignment of cracks in certain rocks. ... some desert rocks are oriented in this non-random way. ... McFadden's primary interest is weathering in the world's arid and ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: A Natural Compass - Rock Cracks
    ... Don't use cracks in rocks to find N,S,E,and W ... > some desert rocks are oriented in this non-random way. ... > suggest that this weathering pattern could show up on other planets or ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Angles and Erosion Rates - For John Harshman
    ... fracture before they warp only helps my position all the more, ... speeds up the rate of their removal by weathering and erosion. ... What on earth has this to do with the fact that rocks on the surface ... local weathering and erosion rates along joints and fractures, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Limonite is not a true mineral
    ... Very common in many ... rocks after weathering at the Earth's surface. ... Imparts brown or yellow ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientist Says Concrete Was Used in Pyramids
    ... For rocks of member II, ... You claimed many times that the rock does not contain much clay, ... "As mentioned before, flocculation, or the agglomeration of particles, ...
    (sci.archaeology)