Petrie’s Infamous Core #7

Dear Friends,

I remember the time when I first read Tompkins’ book Secrets of the Great Pyramid, I felt cheated by academics. Looking through the eyes of Tompkins and many other researchers, I became convinced Egyptologists were patently wrong in their interpretation of the pyramids of Egypt. I felt as though I had been “sold a bill of goods” and my natural reaction was one of anger and resentment. I believe this is a natural reaction for many people who have been persuaded to believe something only to learn later that they were misinformed or, worse, downright duped.

Affecting the beliefs of a large number of people should not be taken lightly by anyone, and authors take on a tremendous responsibility when they attempt to influence people’s views. Writing non-fiction brings other responsibilities also. Because non-fiction works have the potential of becoming a part of the historical record, non-fiction authors are responsible for defending and explaining what they have written to those who raise serious and legitimate questions.

When I first read Giza: The Truth I focused on the segments of the book that addressed my book, The Giza Power Plant: Technologies of Ancient Egypt. My first reaction was to ignore it. It seemed to be the thing to do, as there were other authors, whose work was criticized in this book, seemed to be ignoring it also.

There was a part of the book, though, that I had to pay attention to. Ian Lawton and Chris Ogilvie-Herold effectively dismissed my theories of how the ancient Egyptians drilled granite using ultrasonic machining by referring to the studies of John Reid, an acoustics engineer, and Harry Brownlee, a stone mason. (For readers who are unfamiliar with my theory they can follow the Advanced Machining link at www.gizapower.com.

My theory of ultrasonic machining was based on Sir William Flinders Petrie’s book Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh. In his book, Petrie described an artifact with marks of a drilling process that left a spiral groove in granite that indicated that the drill sank into the granite at .100 inch per revolution of the drill. Reid and Brownlee, upon physical examination of this artifact, the infamous drill core #7, testified that the grooves were not spiral grooves but individual rings, and were common to cores found in any modern quarry in England.

After reading this report in Lawton and Herald’s book, I immediately posted to my website, www.gizapower.com, a statement to the effect that I suspend any assertions I have made about ultrasonic machining of these holes and cores.

During this time, also, I was inundated with emails that sprang from an errant message I had broadcast confirming a part of The Giza Power Plant theory. The message resulted in the beginning of a bulletin board discussion on Gizapower on the www.atlantisrising.com website. It was here that one of my readers, Eddie Newmiller, asked what my opinion was of Giza: The Truth.

The discussion that followed is reported below.

Petrie’s Infamous Core #7

Chris Dunn

posted 10-04-1999 20:54

My original assertions regarding ultrasonic machining were based on what I considered to be a very detailed and accurate description of the Valley Core artifact by Sir William Flinders Petrie. Petrie was known for his meticulous work, was the father of modern Egyptology, and his description of the artifact was so detailed and thorough, I assumed that it was correct.

In Giza: The Truth, Lawton and Ogilvie-Herold claim that Petrie was mistaken and point out that physical and photographic detailed examination of the artifact in question by two other researchers, Reid and Brownlee, show that the spiral groove, the principle characteristic of the piece that leads me to suggest that ultrasonics was used, was not spiral but circular.

Until I have the opportunity to perform a detailed inspection of the piece, which requires more than mere visual scrutiny, I am forced to defer to the observations of Reid and Brownlee. Nevertheless, even in so doing, I have questions about their observations if they are basing them on the photograph in Lawton/Herold’s book. What we have is a photograph that shows the frustrum of a cone (the Valley Core) with grooves cut into it. As you know, Eddie, as well as any other machinist and engineer who work in the aircraft industry, visual observations of features on a cone are dependent on your angle of view, as well as the attitude of the cone.

If the cone is lying down along the length of its diameter, the surface you are looking at is tilted at the combined angle of the cone, and, depending on your angle of observation, a concentric groove cut into the diameter could appear to be an ellipse. Then if the cone is tilted to the left or the right, any feature you may be observing on its surface will be tilted also.

The photograph in Lawton/Herold’s book shows the Valley Core in black and white and it is tilted on an angle. The grooves cut into the diameter of the cone have the appearance of being horizontal, which would give a casual observer the impression that they were not spiral. I took the JPG of this photograph, kindly sent to me by Nick Annies, and brought it into my graphics program. I then constructed a frame around the core and rotated it until it was squarely positioned within the frame.

The grooves observed under these conditions appear to definitely be spiral.

This is why I have only “suspended” any assertions on ultrasonic machining. I need to do a personal on-site measurement of the groove to satisfy myself as to who is correct – Petrie, or Reid and Brownlee.

Do I recommend the book? Certainly! I found, for the most part, that it was well written, and the authors had gone to great pains to bring forward esoteric information from early researchers. After reading Giza: The Truth, my first instinct was to write a rebuttal. My publisher asked that I do not respond to their treatment of my work. Nevertheless, I promised Chris Ogilvie-Herold a response, and this is as good a time and place as any to fulfill that promise.

In this book the authors have gone to great length and worked very hard to support the orthodox view of Egyptology. In the process, they seem to have adopted the attitude and style of some of the contributors to the sci.archaeology newsgroup on DejaNews. (I’m saying that from personal experience.) I don’t totally blame them for the presumptuous title, for the most part publishers have control over those things, and I’m sure that they believe what they have written is true to the best of their knowledge.

In their treatment of The Giza Power Plant, Lawton and Ogilvie-Herold resort to name calling, and claim that I am suffering from “millenium fever.” Notwithstanding the fact that I started my book in 1977 – and they in 1997? The truth is that I had started writing about the Giza Power Plant theory before I had read Petrie’s work. Much of my original research on the power plant theory was drafted before I wrote anything about advanced machining. My original ideas came from Tompkin’s book, and it was while working through his bibliography that I came across the gold-mine of information contained in Petrie’s Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh. So I have been suffering from “millenium madness” for over 20 years.

What offends me is that, in typical orthodox style, following the ad hominem statement in this book, the reader is treated to a simplistic dismissal of a very detailed and complex engineering subject. My analysis of the Great Pyramid, they say, fails to consider “context” and is summarily dismissed without any alternative explanation for the innumerable mysteries of the Great Pyramid for which my book proposes legitimate and realistic answers.

What is the context they are speaking of? It is cultural context. The context of a culture that is obsessed with death and the afterlife. I have failed to uphold theirs and Egyptologist’s requirements that researchers consider the body of knowledge that has been painstakingly assembled about this subject. In the context of a tomb, though, there is no answer for the many features and anomalies of the Great Pyramid. Only when considered in the context of a scientifically engineered device – a machine – do we begin to understand its complex design. It is my opinion that in terms of explaining the pyramids, the engineering context has more legitimacy than a cultural context. The litter we may find around the Hoover Dam describes a particular cultural context, but not necessarily the whole picture. When interpreted within an engineering context, the Hoover Dam broadens the view of the entire culture.

As I stated in my book. Any theory that purports to explain the Great Pyramid has to answer ALL the previously unanswered questions. Every detail must be explained. Every design feature. And the explanation must make sense. The elements must fit together. We must not lose sight of the truth because of ego. If I am wrong, I will willingly admit it. But it must be proven to me by more than a simplistic argument such as what is offered in Giza: The Truth. The context within which any society lives is the context of survival and work. An obsession with death grows out of this principle context. It is not the main event. Within the context of work we see the results of the application of tools. When scholars seek an understanding of the tools used to build the pyramids, why do they look to Egyptologists? Were they involved in the original work? Are they involved in such work today?

Ian Lawton

posted 10-19-1999 00:06

As one of the co-authors of “Giza: The Truth”, I thought it might be appropriate to make a few points on Chris Dunn’s posting of the 4th October to help clarify some issues…

Ref “Drill core No 7”, Reid and Brownlee took this photograph themselves, and accordingly were able to spend considerable time examining the core from all angles and in detail. In any case, far more significant is Chris’ own admission in his book that ultrasound machining operates primarily via a pounding and not a rotational action, which is what makes the supposed feed rates displayed on the core such a red herring in the first place. Rather than injecting further red herrings, it would be useful if he could elaborate on how he resolves this major dichotomy. On this note it is also fundamental that Brownlee asserts that modern ultrasound cores tend to be totally free of striations.

Ref our supposed suggestion that Chris was “inspired” by the work of Hancock and Mckenty, this was merely “poetic licence” and no great point of significance was intended – as can be seen by the fact that it is Chris’ work which receives all the subsequent attention, and not the others’. Nevertheless we are happy to take his reminder of the origins and motivation for his work on board, and adjust our wording accordingly for the next edition of the book.

Ref our supposed “simplistic dismissal of a very detailed and complex engineering subject”, we can quite understand Chris being upset at us bracketing him with others who we, clearly somewhat tongue-in-cheek, suggest are suffering from “millennium madness”, but it should be quite clear that we attempt to treat his theories on machining with considerably more respect than his general theory about the “Giza Power Plant”. This is given only a cursory mention along with other similar theories. However, to suggest that we provide only a simplistic dismissal with no explanation of the “innumerable mysteries of the Great Pyramid” is, I think, stretching the point. If Chris has read all the early chapters, and the relevant appendices which must also be read in order to obtain a full understanding, then I find it impossible to believe that he or anyone else can suggest that we fail to properly evaluate all the supposed anomalies of the Great Pyramid, or to prove that all have a simple explanation within a funerary and ritualistic context – with the possible exception of the “air shafts” which we believe do remain something of an enigma but still have primarily a ritual explanation.

Finally, it may be useful to once again emphasise, since there seems to be a suggestion that we have somehow been “retained” by the orthodox camp, that we initially felt that many of the alternative theories probably were superior to the orthodox, and it was only when we conducted our full research programme for the book that our opinions changed on most issues as a result of our findings and nothing else. As other researchers have delighted in pointing out, we are relative new boys with no official qualifications in Egyptology, so it should I think be clear that we had, and have, no axe to grind either way. Moreover we do leave our minds a little more open to unorthodox possibilities than most Egyptologists where we believe the evidence merits it, for example as regards the elevation of the most massive temple blocks.

I hope this provides some brief but useful clarification.

Chris Dunn

posted 10-23-1999 17:06

Thank you Ian for your response.

Ref “Drill core No 7”. Yes, I have heard this argument before, and phrased in almost the exact same way. Deja-Vu. Let me address it this way. I am sympathetic to those who see a dichotomy with how my explanation of how ultrasonic machining explains the features of the core and, therefore, reject the notion. In fact if there was such a disconnect within my own understanding of the technique described I would reject the notion also. As I tried to explain the technique on the DejaNews sci.archaeology newsgroup several years ago, and now find myself again faced with the same arguments, I will take the responsibility for not explaining it sufficiently the first time and have another go at it.

(I have developed an understanding of manufacturing over a 38 year period, and I sometimes forget that some of the simplest concepts may be foreign to those who have no experience in this field. I should add, though, that I have not had any problems explaining this technique to machinists, toolmakers and manufacturing engineers. Therefore, I would ask those who do not have any manufacturing experience to read and attempt to understand what I have to say without the assumption that I am wrong simply because the conclusion does not fit within their own particular belief system.)

First of all, let us discuss Reid and Brownlee’s findings. To tell the truth, I am somewhat embarrassed that I do not have a personal inspection of the core on record. I am caught flat-footed by their assertions that the grooves on the core are not spiral, as Petrie described, but individual grooves that start and end at the same point. With Reid and Brownlee being the most recent observers of this artifact, I will take them at their word and suspend my own speculations of ultrasonic machining until I have had the chance to check their finding. I admit negligence for not verifying the reports of earlier researchers such as Petrie and Lucas before writing my book, and I am quite willing to make any fact-based changes as necessary in future editions of the work.

Though Reid and Brownlee discredit Petrie’s observations, on page 88 in Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries by A. Lucas, we read a description of cores with as many as 17 equidistant spiral grooves (see also The Giza Power Plant page 86). As both Petrie and Lucas made their observations many years before I came along with my “alternate” views, I can reasonably argue that their observations were without prejudice, and they were not trying to prove, or disprove, a point. Moreover, I have personally examined holes in granite at Abu Ghurab that display spiral grooves, so it didn’t occur to me to question the observations of Petrie or Lucas. Being remiss for not physically examining drill core 7, I am left with no option but to question Reid and Brownlee’s observations along with Petrie and Lucas and prepare for a trip to London in November to inspect the artifact myself.

In the meantime, I am compelled to explain, in detail, why I determined that ultrasonic machining was the only machining method that satisfied the evidence that was described by Petrie.

When Ian writes,

“Far more significant is Chris’ own admission in his book that ultrasound machining operates primarily via a pounding and not a rotational action, which is what makes the supposed feed rates displayed on the core such a red herring in the first place,” I read into the sentence an artful and sophisticated rebuttal of a reasonable and simple manufacturing technique. Let us try to understand what this sentence means.

“Chris’s own admission in his book that ultrasound machining operates primarily via a pounding and not a rotational action…”

There is nothing to admit or deny. It is the nature of the beast. Ultrasonic machining is a discrete oscillatory abrasive process. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the way I read this, Ian is assuming that if there is a pounding action for the removal of material, there is no need to be looking at or describing a rotational action.

“Which is what makes the supposed feed rates displayed on the core such a red herring in the first place.”

My understanding of what these sentences mean is that the feed rate described by Petrie on the core, and which my theory of ultrasonic machining relies on, may be a red herring – a false clue. Before we go further, let us look at another statement.

“Rather than injecting further red herrings, it would be useful if he could elaborate on how he resolves this major dichotomy.”

Using Petrie’s and Lucas’s described evidence, the “dichotomy”, or separate parts to this process, are actually integral and depend upon each other for the process to work. Before continuing with ancient Egyptian artifacts, though, let me describe a modern technique of machining that is little known or used in most machine shops today. Now remember, we are not in ancient Egypt now, so you can accept what I am saying as demonstrated fact. Remember also that there are other readers of these posts who are my peers – engineers, machinists and toolmakers. So I’m not trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

We know that copper can’t cut granite, right? Well, how do you get a piece of copper to tap a hole – or cut an inside thread – in a piece of hardened tool-steel?

The answer is electrical discharge machining (EDM). EDM discretely removes conductive material by creating a controlled short between an anode (tool) and a cathode (workpiece). Dielectric oil flushes the waste material away. The copper or graphite electrode actually burns the material leaving behind an impression of its shape. The round copper rod has a helical thread cut into its outside diameter, like a bolt. An assembly with a nut is attached to the ram platten of the machine. The copper “bolt” is then rotated in a clockwise direction. With each rotation of the “bolt” it comes closer to the workpiece. When the “bolt” is a few microns away from the workpiece, electrical discharge occurs. By continuing to thread the “bolt” through the nut while maintaining electrical discharge from the steel, the geometry and feedrate of the “bolt” is burned into the steel, resulting in a spiral thread. Properly done, the EDM “tapped” hole is precise and effective.

I draw on this analogy to explain my theory on ultrasonic machining. The ultrasonic pounding action provides discrete material removal; however, without some force or mechanism to advance the tool into the workpiece, the tool would be pounding only fresh air. There has to be a means by which pressure is applied to the workpiece. I proposed, based on Petrie’s observations of an impossible conventional feedrate, that the pressure was provided by the screw and nut method. With only the screw and nut and no pounding action, we will advance the tool as far as the workface and go no further. The elements are separate but dependent on each other; therefore, there is no “major dichotomy” and no “red herring.”

“On this note it is also fundamental that Brownlee asserts that modern ultrasound cores tend to be totally free of striations.”

I heard this argument on DejaNews, too. In a perfect world, all machined surfaces would be free of tool marks. If you were observing holes ultrasonically drilled into expensive optical components for NASA or the ESA, there would be no striations. Most ultrasonic machines plunge directly into the material without rotating the tool. Most EDM machines do the same. There are exceptions to both. There are also exceptions to the requirements for smooth striation-free machined objects. Machinists and toolmakers have been known to “crowd” or force the tool into the workpiece in order to speed production. In some instances, depending on the tool, it is beneficial to “crowd” the workpiece as it has a self-dressing effect. Take grinding, for instance. A grinding wheel can become clogged with the material it is removing which slows down the grinding process. A technique for overcoming this it to force the wheel across or into the material to the point that wheel breaks down and wears. This assures that the clogged material is removed and the tool can continue to cut efficiently.

My understanding of the scientific method of inquiry is that a hypothesis must be fact-based and provide answer for all the known evidence. I was looking for a method that explained all the characteristics of the core, which included a taper on the hole and core, indicative of wear of the tool. Clyde Treadwell of Sonic Mill described an ultrasonic process where the tool would leave a spiral groove while being drawn out of the hole, but the tool was spinning, and the groove was the result of the eccentric rotation of the tool. I concede that if a spinning tool can create these characteristics, then there is no need to resort to ultrasonic machining. I was persuaded by a variation of the ultrasonic method because of the report that the “spiral” groove was cut deeper through the quartz than the felspar. Right or wrong I was basing my analysis on my own personal experience with machining materials that were not homogenous in their physical makeup. The harder material tends to be more resistant to tool pressure than the softer material.

The foregoing are reasons why I proposed ultrasonics as an answer. I have always maintained that if another method was forthcoming that would answer all the characteristics noted, and that method was simpler, then Occam’s Razor, where all else being equal the simplest explanation is probably the correct one, would take precedence.

I hope to be in London within the next 4 weeks to examine drill core #7, after which, ultrasonic machining will either be taken off the table or it will remain a possibility. In the meantime, there is much more in my book we could discuss regarding machining. What about the precision and geometry of the contoured blocks on the Giza Plateau? Or the boxes in the Serapeum and Khafre’s pyramid. A detailed description of these artifacts can be found in The Giza Power Plant.

I will return with another post to address Ian’s comments about the powerplant theory.

Best,

Chris

Ian Lawton posted 10-25-1999 07:21