Steine der Pyramiden gegossen?
24.04.2007 um 11:09Link: www.blackwell-synergy.com (extern) (Archiv-Version vom 15.12.2018)
Steine der Pyramidenb gegossen?
Nun, da gibt es ja immer nochdie
Spekulation/Tatsache/Untersuchungen, das die Pyramiden aus beton gegossenwurden.
Natürlich nicht vollständig,versteht
sich.
_________________________________________________________________
1720 –
Paul Lucas, ein Piplomat im Dienste des Sonnenkönigs Ludwig 14., stellterstmals die
Hypothese auf, die Steinverkleidung der grossen Pyramide sei aus Zementund nicht aus
Steinblöcken gefügt
1979 – Der französische Chemiker JosephDavidovits stellte die
Theorie der „zementierten Blöcke“ auf
1992 – Die Studieder französischen
Geologien Suzanne Raynaud und des Amateur-Archöologin Joel Berthokommen zum selben
Schluuss, Ihre Resultate werden im Wissenschaftsmagazin „Sience &Vie“
veröffentlicht
_________________________________________________________________
<b
r>2006 – Die Physiker Michel Barsoum und Gilles Hug (Drexel-University,Department of
Materials Science and Engineering, Philadelphia) untersuchten dieSteinstrukturen mittels
modernster Technik und publizieren ihre Ergebnisse im Dezemberim „Journal of the
American Ceramic Society“
----- --------- -------- ---------
--------- --------- ---
Hier einAuszug des ursprünglichen Artikels
(ist allerdings in Englischgeschrieben).
Microstructural Evidence of
Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in theGreat Pyramids of Egypt
• M. W.
Barsoum11Department of Materials Science andEngineering, Drexel University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Author to whomcorrespondence should be addressed.
e-mail: barsoumw@drexel.edu,
• A.Ganguly11Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, Drexel University,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 and
• G.
Hug22LEM ONERA-CNRS, Châtillon Cedex,France
• 1Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, Drexel University,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
2LEM ONERA-CNRS,
Châtillon Cedex, France
S.Weiderhorn—contributing editor
ORNL is managed by
UT-Battelle for the U.S.Department of Energy. This work was partially funded by the
National ScienceFoundation (DMR 0503711).
How the Great Pyramids of Giza were
built hasremained an enduring mystery. In the mid-1980s, Davidovits proposed that the
pyramidswere cast in situ using granular limestone aggregate and analkali
alumino-silicate-based binder. Hard evidence for this idea, however, remainedelusive.
Using primarily scanning and transmission electron microscopy, we compared anumber of
pyramid limestone samples with six different limestone samples from theirvicinity. The
pyramid samples contained microconstituents (μc's) with appreciableamounts of Si in
combination with elements, such as Ca and Mg, in ratios that do notexist in any of the
potential limestone sources. The intimate proximity of theμc's suggests that at
some time these elements had been together in a solution.Furthermore, between the
natural limestone aggregates, the μc's with chemistriesreminiscent of calcite and
dolomite—not known to hydrate in nature—were hydrated. Theubiquity of Si and the
presence of submicron silica-based spheres in some of themicrographs strongly suggest
that the solution was basic. Transmission electronmicroscope confirmed that some of
these Si-containing μc's were either amorphousor nanocrystalline, which is
consistent with a relatively rapid precipitationreaction. The sophistication and
endurance of this ancient concrete technology issimply astounding.
Ansonsten
siehLink!
xpq101
:>
Anzeige
Steine der Pyramidenb gegossen?
Nun, da gibt es ja immer nochdie
Spekulation/Tatsache/Untersuchungen, das die Pyramiden aus beton gegossenwurden.
Natürlich nicht vollständig,versteht
sich.
_________________________________________________________________
1720 –
Paul Lucas, ein Piplomat im Dienste des Sonnenkönigs Ludwig 14., stellterstmals die
Hypothese auf, die Steinverkleidung der grossen Pyramide sei aus Zementund nicht aus
Steinblöcken gefügt
1979 – Der französische Chemiker JosephDavidovits stellte die
Theorie der „zementierten Blöcke“ auf
1992 – Die Studieder französischen
Geologien Suzanne Raynaud und des Amateur-Archöologin Joel Berthokommen zum selben
Schluuss, Ihre Resultate werden im Wissenschaftsmagazin „Sience &Vie“
veröffentlicht
_________________________________________________________________
<b
r>2006 – Die Physiker Michel Barsoum und Gilles Hug (Drexel-University,Department of
Materials Science and Engineering, Philadelphia) untersuchten dieSteinstrukturen mittels
modernster Technik und publizieren ihre Ergebnisse im Dezemberim „Journal of the
American Ceramic Society“
----- --------- -------- ---------
--------- --------- ---
Hier einAuszug des ursprünglichen Artikels
(ist allerdings in Englischgeschrieben).
Microstructural Evidence of
Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in theGreat Pyramids of Egypt
• M. W.
Barsoum11Department of Materials Science andEngineering, Drexel University,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Author to whomcorrespondence should be addressed.
e-mail: barsoumw@drexel.edu,
• A.Ganguly11Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, Drexel University,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 and
• G.
Hug22LEM ONERA-CNRS, Châtillon Cedex,France
• 1Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, Drexel University,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
2LEM ONERA-CNRS,
Châtillon Cedex, France
S.Weiderhorn—contributing editor
ORNL is managed by
UT-Battelle for the U.S.Department of Energy. This work was partially funded by the
National ScienceFoundation (DMR 0503711).
How the Great Pyramids of Giza were
built hasremained an enduring mystery. In the mid-1980s, Davidovits proposed that the
pyramidswere cast in situ using granular limestone aggregate and analkali
alumino-silicate-based binder. Hard evidence for this idea, however, remainedelusive.
Using primarily scanning and transmission electron microscopy, we compared anumber of
pyramid limestone samples with six different limestone samples from theirvicinity. The
pyramid samples contained microconstituents (μc's) with appreciableamounts of Si in
combination with elements, such as Ca and Mg, in ratios that do notexist in any of the
potential limestone sources. The intimate proximity of theμc's suggests that at
some time these elements had been together in a solution.Furthermore, between the
natural limestone aggregates, the μc's with chemistriesreminiscent of calcite and
dolomite—not known to hydrate in nature—were hydrated. Theubiquity of Si and the
presence of submicron silica-based spheres in some of themicrographs strongly suggest
that the solution was basic. Transmission electronmicroscope confirmed that some of
these Si-containing μc's were either amorphousor nanocrystalline, which is
consistent with a relatively rapid precipitationreaction. The sophistication and
endurance of this ancient concrete technology issimply astounding.
Ansonsten
siehLink!
xpq101
:>
Anzeige