Using AI to further debunk ancient Egyptians used technologies to drill granite far beyond the current level.

[SelfSim]

These large flat and machine like finishes are from Egyptian sites. The bottom one is in basalt and is a leftover at Abu Ghorab
of a paver being cut out of the block to make pavers that suuround places like the pyramid of Giza.

The top one is from Abu Rawash and has what looks like a router or planer step that cuts in and come back out in the middle of the granite. The whole piece is also cut with a curved surface. How does a small saw cut a curved surface. Even a large saw can't as hand saws are only mean't to cut straight.

So for once rather than hand wave explain to me how a 2 or 3 foot saw could produce such signatures. For example did they cut it bit by bit making smaller cuts until they eventually cut the whole piece. This would leave uneven cuts all over the surface. So did they come back and then grind out these uneven bits and smooth it off.

I don't know but this is one of the anomelies that needs to be answered rather than ignored if you want to convince people that existing tools made these signatures. Otherwise your just going off blind faith.

More OT tangential questions.
Its almost impossible to see the surface details in those images. All we have is some dude's interpretation (or is it yours?) of what's in the image.

I can't see why a big rotating grindstone couldn't make the surface details you're speculating about anyway?

 

[SelfSim]

The Bad science video is full of logical fallacies itself. First its creating a false analogy. The advanced tech arguement is not just from precision but from the signatures in the rocks and the inability for example of a 2 foot saw to cut a 10 foot slab. Or a 20 foot wood sled to carry a 1,000 ton mega block.

You seem unaware that you have not, in the least way, demonstrated that the so-called 'signatures in the rocks' and megalith lifting techniques we are talking about, are unique to any given tool.
They are however, unique signs of active problem-solving, tool using, human minds.

Next he makes the false analogy that the objections are based on the primitive tool and not the person operating the tool. He says quote "a tool no matter how advanced is only as good as the person operating it.

As he says give a sophisticated tool to a child and they will produce rubbish. This is just illogical because what if we give the sophisticated tool to a craftsman. The craftsman with the sophisticated tool will do better than with an inadequate tool.

Any craftsman committed to realising their visualisations, will eventually make the best use whatever tools they have available, to achieve what they initially visualised. Their commitment is what drives the result.

He is saying that a diamond tipped circular saw is not better than a 2 foot hand saw. It will make no difference and the hand saw can produce the same results as a machine designed to cut precision. Thats just illogical and false.

No .. its common sense when the tool is selected from what's available at the time and there is a craftsman committed to producing their desired outcome. That craftsman is more than capable of solving the shortcomings of the available tool over time, in order to produce their desired outcome.

He then makes the false claims its an arguement from authority and yet this whole arguement from the skeptics is based on an arguement from authority by the constant ad hominemns against anyone who claims advanced tech and knowledge. We hear that true experts like archeologists know better or that Dunn is not an egyptologists ect ect etc. All arguements from authority.

Oh come on now!
You have ridiculed several people on these threads when they challenge Petrie's measurement techniques and Dunn's ideas of the #7 core . What's that if its not your appeal to the supposed authority of Petrie/Dunn?

The modern day terms 'Archeologists and 'Egyptologists', implies the unleashing the power of scientific checks and balances on any supposed 'authority' figure, via the peer review process which takes into consideration a much broader perspective .. or have you forgotten what actually makes good science, again?
Gimme a break!

He appeals to the wheel being the tool for creating these perfect round 3D objects and says the faster the object spins the more accurate the cut will be. Yet the wheel was not invented 5 or 6,000 years ago. If he wants to claim that people 5,000 years ago had a fast spinning turning wheel then fine because thats advanced tech for that period.

What 'wheel' are you basing this claim on?
If something is rotated, it establishes circular motion, regardless of whether wheels have been invented, or not.

Then he makes the false claim that these precision works and megaliths were assumed to be made for no apparent reason. We have evdience that they were made for religious and ceremonial reasons. Like the great cathedrals they are made with dedication because of their gods and beliefs. What better motivation to create a works that is so perfect or large than for the gods.

I can think of others .. I'm sure they could have done that too.
I'm not denying that religious beliefs have certainly held back human intellect for many thousands of years too.

 

[stevevw]

(1) Stocks was not even mentioned in this thread

It doesn't matter you said you did not quote him and you did. This was your first attempt to prove your case that ancient tools could produce the signatures. Yet Stokes was y=uaing a bow drill with sand and then claimed victory for reproducing ancient results. Even though it looked nothing like Petries core. Just one example of the misrepresentations.

and the Russian experiments were used as the baseline for comparison confirming your dishonesty or living in some alternate universe divorced from reality.

Another personal jibe, now your calling me a liar. If I believe what I believe and so do others we are not lying but truely believe what we are seeing. You don't call someone who disagrees with you a liar its just not good debating.

What do you mean by the baseline for comparison. They got different results in their own experiments which is bad science.

(2) For all your babbling and bluster

Once again another personal jibe. Making out that everything I say is just babbling and bluster without any evdience. I have clearly shown you were wrong at times when you called me names so you are being shown that your personal jibes are unjustified and jumping the gun.

about procedures not being consistent, playing the victim card,

Gee another one. Asd things have progressed you have gone into complete ad hominems. If this was a public debate you would not do it as it would not be allowed. It undermines your whole argument even if you think you are right as those who are confident they are right don't need to resort to personal attacks.

keep showing how I am wrong etc, is nothing more than a diversion because this thread has achieved its objective of showing Dunn is wrong.

No it hasn't. Please show me evdience and even if he is wrong on occassions that doesn't make him wrong overall. You have been wrong on occassions so therefore your own logic says you are also wrong fullstop.

What you continually ignore is the 2010 experiment which was analysed and using Dunn's methodology of a near constant pitch reveals the feed rate per revolution is way above anything modern drilling into granite can deliver.

No it doesn't. It lacks spiral cuts for which Dunn based his feed rate on. I showed you Dunns own words that he was using the spiral and not horizontal cuts and not the pitch. Even if the pitched varied or was different to moden drills its not the pitch but the spiral cuts that determine the feed rate.

The Russians also provided actual data on drilling speed in mm/hr and RPM to further confirm Dunn's method is rubbish.

What do you mean. Are you trying to justify the use of a machine cutting the core as evdience against Petrie and Dunn. As soon as the machine is used it disqualifies the evdience as its a false comaprison to a hand held flywheel.

(3) Don't try to be technical in defending Dunn because you make yourself look like a fool.

Another personal attack. The list is growing longer that you are engaging in more fallacies than actual facts. There is a basic principle in debates that anyone who resorts to personal attacks and fallacies like this is automatically disqualifying themselves without any further consideration of the content.

In this latest installment you claim Dunn (and Petrie) are not referring to pitch,

They refer to the pitch but not for the feed rate. Its the spiral.

yet both claim the feed rate per revolution is 0.1mm.
Yet again it needs to be pointed out feed rate per revolution is pitch, so not only do you misrepresent posters but the very individuals you think are unquestionably correct.

Then you need to explain what they meant by the spiral pointing to the feed rate. Once again these are the words of Petrie and Dunn.


Chris Dunn spent hours in the Petrie museum and was allowed to personally examine some of the drill cores. Here he discusses the characteristics of one of them:

Petrie
First we have a circular piece of granite, grooved round and round by a graving point. The grooves here are continuous forming a spiral and in one point a single groove may be traced around the piece for a length of five rotations equal to 3 feet. The grooves 1/100 of an inch deep in quartz must need a pressure on the point of much over a hundredweight.
Dunn
'The most fascinating feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inch per revolution of the drill. It was 500 times greater than modern diamond drills, but the rotation of the drill would not have been as fast as the modern drill's 900 revolutions per minute.'

Dunn is clearly saying its the spiral cut and not the pitch that leads Petrie and him to proposed the fast feed rate.

So tell me what he meant by this if not referring to the fast feed rate. You keep ignoring this but this comes from Dunns and Petries own words and not the words about pitch you are trying to attach to them.

To sum up what Petrie, Dunn and others are pointing out to the importance of the spiral as opposed to horizontal cuts or pitch if you like.

The basic tactic that the objections use is never admit the grooves are spiral. If you claim the threads are concentric or horizontal then theres no incredible feed rate into the core and theres no requirement for tremendous pressure on the tool tip. You can explain everything with abrasive power or sand and a copper pipe.

(4) So you have always advocated copper was used by the Egyptians when drilling into granite.

What else could they use as the rod for holding the fixed points into. Copper was the only metal available at that time. Someone proposed that as the copper rod was smelted the jewel tips were embedded into the copper thus fixing them into the copper rod.

This explaination is exactly waht the article I linked proposed. So its not just made up but a reasonable explanation and possibility.

View attachment 358354​

The reason I have used a screenshot is to make sure there is no tampering of posts, an issue incidentally I have taken up with the moderators.

Theres nothing to hide here. I am saying that if copper tubes were used as described by yourself and others then where are the copper pipes in the archeological records. We found some small bow drills and copper chiself that come later. We find the small boats and saws but no copper tubes especially big ones for the bigger holes. Not one we find.

Now you may say well that negates the copper rod with fixed jewels their as well and perhaps it does. But I am not saying this is the definite method but rather spectulation as a poissibility to try and explain what we find. It doesn't matter to me because I am not proposing any definite method. Only that current tools in the archeological records don't acount for what we see.

It may be another tech altogether like stone softening or something else I don't kinow. But its you who are claiming 100% that copper tubes were used and not me. You have assumed my questioning that theres no copper tubes in the records means no copper tubes at all. Your own logic supports me because your claiming it was a copper tube even though we don't find any so I could appeal to your own logic and claim it was a copper rod but we don't find any. Same logic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Bad science video is full of logical fallacies itself. First its creating a false analogy. The advanced tech arguement is not just from precision but from the signatures in the rocks and the inability for example of a 2 foot saw to cut a 10 foot slab. Or a 20 foot wood sled to carry a 1,000 ton mega block.

The video was specifically on "precisionism" -- taking too much meaning from the apparent "precision" of an artifact, particularly stone ones. (i.e., what you whole thing on these threads has been.)

Next he makes the false analogy that the objections are based on the primitive tool and not the person operating the tool. He says quote "a tool no matter how advanced is only as good as the person operating it.

As he says give a sophisticated tool to a child and they will produce rubbish. This is just illogical because what if we give the sophisticated tool to a craftsman. The craftsman with the sophisticated tool will do better than with an inadequate tool.

Everyone knows a workman is only as good as his tools is a common known principle in any craft. A worker with a machine or proper tool for the job will produce a better finish than someone with a rock pounder or tool grossly inadequate for the job.

He is saying that a diamond tipped circular saw is not better than a 2 foot hand saw. It will make no difference and the hand saw can produce the same results as a machine designed to cut precision. Thats just illogical and false.

He said nothing about saws.

The commentator says its only an assumption that advanced tools were used and yet overlooks the massive assumptions that a small saw or rock hammer could produce the precision and large cuts by the existing tools in the records.

Somehow you missed his entire argument about periods where the tools are well known and fine artists show high precision in their works like in medieval Europe.

He then makes the false claims its an arguement from authority and yet this whole arguement from the skeptics is based on an arguement from authority by the constant ad hominemns against anyone who claims advanced tech and knowledge. We hear that true experts like archeologists know better or that Dunn is not an egyptologists ect ect etc. All arguements from authority.

He's just letting the audience know that a big pusher of "precisionism" is your favorite machinist.

The commentator is making a strawman. No one is saying the evidence is simply the result of the authority of the expert. Its also based on a number of other factors like the signatures in the rocks which question the status quo which has not been answered.

He says that this ignores the accumulated knowledge of how we could create super flatness and other geometric shapes with circles and arcs. Yet we see the evdience for highly flat surfaces and complex geometry in pieces 5 to 6,000 years ago well before we developed the knowledge for this.

Not only does he not ignore methods for creating large flat surfaces, he directly mentions that they exist and are known. No special lost tools and methods needed to explain such things.

He appeals to the wheel being the tool for creating these perfect round 3D objects and says the faster the object spins the more accurate the cut will be. Yet the wheel was not invented 5 or 6,000 years ago. If he wants to claim that people 5,000 years ago had a fast spinning turning wheel then fine because thats advanced tech for that period.

He doesn't speak of wheels but "arbors" like those used in a lathe. Many of the objects mentioned in these threads clearly show evidence in their roundness for turning of tools about a point. No one doubts that.

Then he makes the false claim that these precision works and megaliths were assumed to be made for no apparent reason. We have evdience that they were made for religious and ceremonial reasons. Like the great cathedrals they are made with dedication because of their gods and beliefs. What better motivation to create a works that is so perfect or large than for the gods.

He speaks not at all about megaliths. When he speaks of the intent of a particular shape, or interpreting the final shape as the intent of the artist is related to how such items are formed with hand control (instead of with jigs or computer programming on a lathe) When turning wood or stone you can only remove, not add, so an error gets smoothed out and the final shape is not the "intended" one.

The whole video is one big logical fallacy.

I question how carefully you watched it. Perhaps you should try again once or twice more.

 

[SelfSim]

They refer to the pitch but not for the feed rate. Its the spiral.

Then you need to explain what they meant by the spiral pointing to the feed rate. Once again these are the words of Petrie and Dunn.

Who cares? @sjastro has clearly defined the parameters and their interrelationships, which is repeatable in properly controlled physical experiments.
Petrie and Dunn were using pub-speak and imprecise measurement techniques (by todays standards) on #7.

Chris Dunn spent hours in the Petrie museum and was allowed to personally examine some of the drill cores. Here he discusses the characteristics of one of them:

(Pity he appears to have been asleep during any Physics education training he supposedly had).

Petrie
First we have a circular piece of granite, grooved round and round by a graving point. The grooves here are continuous forming a spiral and in one point a single groove may be traced around the piece for a length of five rotations equal to 3 feet. The grooves 1/100 of an inch deep in quartz must need a pressure on the point of much over a hundredweight.
Dunn
'The most fascinating feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inch per revolution of the drill. It was 500 times greater than modern diamond drills, but the rotation of the drill would not have been as fast as the modern drill's 900 revolutions per minute.'

Dunn is clearly saying its the spiral cut and not the pitch that leads Petrie and him to proposed the fast feed rate.

There is no 'spiral cut' if the Standard Deviation of the distribution of the groove measurements is large (which is the case for #7).

So tell me what he meant by this if not referring to the fast feed rate. You keep ignoring this but this comes from Dunns and Petries own words and not the words about pitch you are trying to attach to them.

To sum up what Petrie, Dunn and others are pointing out to the importance of the spiral as opposed to horizontal cuts or pitch if you like.

Pity they don't clearly and formally define what their 'spiral' supposedly is ..
Its only important for them in order to push their agendas (whatever they were).

The basic tactic that the objections use is never admit the grooves are spiral. If you claim the threads are concentric or horizontal then theres no incredible feed rate into the core and theres no requirement for tremendous pressure on the tool tip. You can explain everything with abrasive power or sand and a copper pipe.

What bunkum!
If a spiral cannot be defined, (or physically justified from data), then its perfectly logical to not concur that one exists in the first place!

 

[stevevw]

You seem unaware that you have not, in the least way, demonstrated that the so-called 'signatures in the rocks' and megalith lifting techniques we are talking about, are unique to any given tool.
They are however, unique signs of active problem-solving, tool using, human minds.

I think I have, well at least that a small saw didn't cut them. Tell me what does the signatures look like to you. That a small hand saw or some sort of machining did this. Go through the logical steps of what the signatures would look like with a small saw and see if you would come up with the signatures we see and then explain to me how this is so.

Any craftsman committed to realising their visualisations, will eventually make the best use whatever tools they have available, to achieve what they initially visualised. Their commitment is what drives the result.

No this is a fallacy. If you give a person a small saw and rock hammer and they produce a sports car we can definitely say no matter how determined they are they cannot produce a sports car.

Given a small saw no matter how skilled and determined you are you cannot produce these precision finishes. Ie a flat hand saw cannot cut sharp steps, indentations or edges in granite that have the signature of a router to plane.

The saw is not cutting sharp but grinding the granite, abrasing the granite so no sharp cuts or edeges but rough grond surfaces. So explain how this can be done. Be practical and specific and not 'Oh they would have because they were determined". That is not science.

I am not going to link the images again. You can look at them in the posts I have already linked. You tell me how a snall saw or stone hammer produced those signatures.

No .. its common sense when the tool is selected from what's available at the time and there is a craftsman committed to producing their desired outcome. That craftsman is more than capable of solving the shortcomings of the available tool over time, in order to produce their desired outcome.

So how do they solve creating what looks in every way a machines flat finish 5 times bigger than the small saw, making corners with a hand saw and cutting thin layers off that are as thinner than the saw cut from a hand saw.

Oh come on now!
You have ridiculed several people on these threads when they challenge Petrie's measurement techniques and Dunn's ideas of the #7 core .

Show me where I have ridculed anyone. If disagreeing and posting evdience is rediculing then all scientists are rideculing.

What's that if its not your appeal to the supposed authority of Petrie/Dunn?

I am not appealing to Dunn and Petries authority. I am supplying their evidence. But your side is appealing to authority as they are simply attacking Dunn and Petrie personally and not their evidence. What was it 'Dunn is living in fantasy and Petrie does sloppy work' without one bit of evidence to back this up.

The modern day terms 'Archeologists and 'Egyptologists', implies the unleashing the power of scientific checks and balances on any supposed 'authority' figure, via the peer review process which takes into consideration a much broader perspective .. or have you forgotten what actually makes good science, again?

Peer review is biased and have been 'Scientifically verified'. I have supplied independent tests that repeat the same findings that core drills don't show the same signatures as Petrie and Dunns findings. Repeated independent testing is good science.

Gimme a break!

What 'wheel' are you basing this claim on?
If something is rotated, it establishes circular motion, regardless of whether wheels have been invented, or not.

If the Egyptians invented a turning wheel back then then they would have invented the wheel as its the same principle. If they are good enough to produce such high tech and quality work then they are good enough to apply that wheel concept to the wheel as well.

But your video claims a fast turning wheel that will be needed to produce the precision in the vases. A fast turning wheel is beyond some rudimentary potters wheel. Where is the fast turning potters wheel in the pawall paintings. They show the vases being made but no turning wheel.

I can think of others .. I'm sure they could have done that too.
I'm not denying that religious beliefs have certainly held back human intellect for many thousands of years too.

No religion has inspired intellect. Most scientists were religious and their motivations were to seek moire detail about Gods creation. All megaliths and precision works have been shown to be the product of belief, building to the gods. The people themselves tell us it was for religious or spiritual reasons.

The Egyptians even say that the megaliths and precision works were from and for the gods.

 

[sjastro]

It doesn't matter you said you did not quote him and you did. This was your first attempt to prove your case that ancient tools could produce the signatures. Yet Stokes was y=uaing a bow drill with sand and then claimed victory for reproducing ancient results. Even though it looked nothing like Petries core. Just one example of the misrepresentations.

Another personal jibe, now your calling me a liar. If I believe what I believe and so do others we are not lying but truely believe what we are seeing. You don't call someone who disagrees with you a liar its just not good debating.

What do you mean by the baseline for comparison. They got different results in their own experiments which is bad science.

Once again another personal jibe. Making out that everything I say is just babbling and bluster without any evdience. I have clearly shown you were wrong at times when you called me names so you are being shown that your personal jibes are unjustified and jumping the gun.

Gee another one. Asd things have progressed you have gone into complete ad hominems. If this was a public debate you would not do it as it would not be allowed. It undermines your whole argument even if you think you are right as those who are confident they are right don't need to resort to personal attacks.

No it hasn't. Please show me evdience and even if he is wrong on occassions that doesn't make him wrong overall. You have been wrong on occassions so therefore your own logic says you are also wrong fullstop.

No it doesn't. It lacks spiral cuts for which Dunn based his feed rate on. I showed you Dunns own words that he was using the spiral and not horizontal cuts and not the pitch. Even if the pitched varied or was different to moden drills its not the pitch but the spiral cuts that determine the feed rate.

What do you mean. Are you trying to justify the use of a machine cutting the core as evdience against Petrie and Dunn. As soon as the machine is used it disqualifies the evdience as its a false comaprison to a hand held flywheel.

Another personal attack. The list is growing longer that you are engaging in more fallacies than actual facts. There is a basic principle in debates that anyone who resorts to personal attacks and fallacies like this is automatically disqualifying themselves without any further consideration of the content.

They refer to the pitch but not for the feed rate. Its the spiral.

Then you need to explain what they meant by the spiral pointing to the feed rate. Once again these are the words of Petrie and Dunn.


Chris Dunn spent hours in the Petrie museum and was allowed to personally examine some of the drill cores. Here he discusses the characteristics of one of them:

Petrie
First we have a circular piece of granite, grooved round and round by a graving point. The grooves here are continuous forming a spiral and in one point a single groove may be traced around the piece for a length of five rotations equal to 3 feet. The grooves 1/100 of an inch deep in quartz must need a pressure on the point of much over a hundredweight.
Dunn
'The most fascinating feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inch per revolution of the drill. It was 500 times greater than modern diamond drills, but the rotation of the drill would not have been as fast as the modern drill's 900 revolutions per minute.'

Dunn is clearly saying its the spiral cut and not the pitch that leads Petrie and him to proposed the fast feed rate.

So tell me what he meant by this if not referring to the fast feed rate. You keep ignoring this but this comes from Dunns and Petries own words and not the words about pitch you are trying to attach to them.

To sum up what Petrie, Dunn and others are pointing out to the importance of the spiral as opposed to horizontal cuts or pitch if you like.

The basic tactic that the objections use is never admit the grooves are spiral. If you claim the threads are concentric or horizontal then theres no incredible feed rate into the core and theres no requirement for tremendous pressure on the tool tip. You can explain everything with abrasive power or sand and a copper pipe.

What else could they use as the rod for holding the fixed points into. Copper was the only metal available at that time. Someone proposed that as the copper rod was smelted the jewel tips were embedded into the copper thus fixing them into the copper rod.

This explaination is exactly waht the article I linked proposed. So its not just made up but a reasonable explanation and possibility.

Theres nothing to hide here. I am saying that if copper tubes were used as described by yourself and others then where are the copper pipes in the archeological records. We found some small bow drills and copper chiself that come later. We find the small boats and saws but no copper tubes especially big ones for the bigger holes. Not one we find.

Now you may say well that negates the copper rod with fixed jewels their as well and perhaps it does. But I am not saying this is the definite method but rather spectulation as a poissibility to try and explain what we find. It doesn't matter to me because I am not proposing any definite method. Only that current tools in the archeological records don't acount for what we see.

It may be another tech altogether like stone softening or something else I don't kinow. But its you who are claiming 100% that copper tubes were used and not me. You have assumed my questioning that theres no copper tubes in the records means no copper tubes at all. Your own logic supports me because your claiming it was a copper tube even though we don't find any so I could appeal to your own logic and claim it was a copper rod but we don't find any. Same logic.

You have been caught out lying despite your spin doctoring drivel and if you persist in perpetrating these lies I will start reporting your posts.

Then there is the comment of showing you the evidence of why Dunn is so wrong, I could not have made it any clearer and my remarks on your limited comprehension skills is therefore an observation not a personal attack.
On top of this is the simplistic "Simon says" argument which you can't even get right by mispresenting both Dunn and Petrie by failing to understand the difference between feed rate per revolution and feed rate as a time dependant variable, the maths of which was explained but clearly went over your head and not worth my time repeating it.

The best should be left to last which highlights pitfalls of quote mining, you should have read the entire article particularly the conclusion.

To show the exact methods of stone processing that were really in use in the ancient Egypt was not the aim of our experiments. Rather, ours was an engineering approach: we started from the investigation and identification of traces left by ancient tools.

In the course of our experiments, we examined practical techniques of working with such tools in order to understand what they could have been in ancient times.

From the technical point of view, the tools were simple enough and the task was to clarify the details of their use. Then, if those techniques were reproduced correctly, traces on test workpieces should be exactly the same as those seen in ancient materials. Thus, our aim was to understand the principles of hard stone working.

It makes your ranting and raving about bad science completely irrelevant as it was never the intention to duplicate whatever method the Egyptians used, but what it tells us it doesn't require some super technology as advocated by Dunn as the feed rate per revolution (pitch) as shown in this thread is far in excess of modern drilling technology.
This means there is something wrong with Dunn's reasoning which was explained to you but unfortunately you failed to comprehend it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How can you say I ignored this when I responded. Its more like you ignored my response. I said and even you acknowledge this that the depiction is a modern one just like today when we make pictures of how we thought the Egyptians may have moved things. Its not the Egytians themselves making this memorial so its not evidence. Its rather later people making the depctions.

Now this is just flat out lying. The evidence I showed was contemporary for the creations they were linked to, but now you're claiming that they were created later?

No. This comment of yours just flat out blows any intellectual credibility you have flat out of the window. I'm done with this.

 

[stevevw]

Who cares? @sjastro has clearly defined the parameters and their interrelationships, which is repeatable in properly controlled physical experiments.
Petrie and Dunn were using pub-speak and imprecise measurement techniques (by todays standards) on #7.

Thats just silly. They had specialised rules and callipers and other geometric tools to accurately measure artifacts in Petries tiime. Petrie invented the measuring methods and was one of the most accurate and maticoul Egyptologists in the world at the time. Dunn confirmed his measures with modern tools. To say that Dunn cannot read the simple measures of a pitch and spiral is rediculous. In fact sjastro just used Dunns measures so he obviously has no problems.

The issue is not about the variation in the pitch. Its about sjastro making a strawman about what Dunn was using to measure the fast feed rate. Sjastro claims Dunn is using the pitch to measure the feed rate.

THis is a strawman because Dunn himself says he was not using the pitch to determine the fast feed rate. He was using the fact that the pitch spiralled rather than being horizontal which means for each rotation the drill cut deeper into the granite than it would if the pitch was horizontal.

Perhaps linking Dunns own words and reasoning may help to under his reasoning as to why the feed rate was fast and how this seemed beyond what we can do today.

Christ Dunn findings which supported Petrie on the spiral grooves which caused the fast feed rate.

Three distinct characteristics of the hole and core make the artifacts extremely remarkable. They are...

1. A taper on both the hole and the core.
2. A symmetrical helical groove following these tapers which showed that the drill advanced into the granite at a feed rate of .100 inch per revolution of the drill.
3. The confounding fact that the spiral groove cut deeper through the quartz than through the softer feldspar. In conventional machining the reverse would be the case.

Mr. Donald Rahn of Rahn Granite Surface Plate Co., Dayton, Ohio, told me, in 1983, that in drilling granite, diamond drills, rotating at 900 revolutions per minute, penetrate at the rate of 1 inch in 5 minutes. This works out to be .0002 inch per revolution, meaning that the ancient Egyptians were able to cut their granite with a feed rate that was 500 times greater.

"The spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing."
Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt - Spirit & Stone

As you can see the variation in the pitch had nothing to do with why Dunn proposed a fast feed rate. As he said in his own words it was the spiralling of the cut and pitch as each rotation spiralled the cut deeper into the granite than a horizontal pitch would regardless of whether the pitched varied.

(Pity he appears to have been asleep during any Physics education training he supposedly had).

Who Dunn. Dun has worked within areospace and manufactoring engineering including tool and parts making for over 50 years. Why wouldn't he be able to measure basic pitches and spirals. Thats just rediculous and disrespectful to someones earnt qualifications.

Honestly is this your arguement. An ad hominum. Your more or less saying you are more qualified than Petrie and Dunn to be able to be confident you are right. Really.

There is no 'spiral cut' if the Standard Deviation of the distribution of the groove measurements is large (which is the case for #7).

Petries core number 7 has been proeven to be spiral beyond doubt. Repeated tests have all come to the same finding which is good science.

Here's Dunn

My final conclusion based on Malcom McClures and my own site inspection as well as the flat layout of the surface with arcs applied is that the groove around the Petrie Core 7 is a spiral rather than individual horizontal striations as claimed by Reid and Brownles and others. Moreover the spiral groove travels the full length of the core and any discontinuities are due to the ripping out of the mica a constituent of granite with some discontinuities seen as faint lines seen on the laatex peel but on the granite core they cannot be sen with the naked eye.

Taking into consideration Petrie's own account, my inspection in 1999 and Malcom McClures and my additional inspection in 2003 along with analysis of the latex impresion of the core, the question as to whether the groove is horizontal or spiral appears to be answered.

Walking in the Shadow of William F. Petrie – Giza Power

gizapower.com

Petrie had studied more than core 7 but several cores and drill holes and noted the spiral grooves on others.

Alan Lucas another Egyptologist also backs up Petrie and Dunns findings. Lucas had conducted tests around Giza and other sites and found many cores with spiral cuts and grooves.

A cylindrical core of granite grooved round and round by a graving point, the grooves being continuous and forming a spiral, with in one part a single groove that may be traced five rotations round the core.

Full text of "Ancient Egyptian Materials And Industries"

That is more or less word for word as to what Petrie said around the same time as these two were contemporaries.

So thats 5 independent observation and tests that came to the same findings that the grooves were spiral. One of those tests was done showing Reid and Brownles were wrong in their claim that the grooves were horizontal because they actually did the measurements off a photo which they tilted to make it look like they were horizontal.

Pity they don't clearly and formally define what their 'spiral' supposedly is ..
Its only important for them in order to push their agendas (whatever they were).

What bunkum!
If a spiral cannot be defined, (or physically justified from data), then its perfectly logical to not concur that one exists in the first place!

Please refer to evidence above. I will leave the rest as this is not an arguement or evidence.

 

[stevevw]

Now this is just flat out lying. The evidence I showed was contemporary for the creations they were linked to, but now you're claiming that they were created later?

No. This comment of yours just flat out blows any intellectual credibility you have flat out of the window. I'm done with this.

Ok sorry. I thought you said it was a "contemporary piece of work for sure and was done to commemorate and immortalize the construction of his obelisk".

I was saying that the base the obelisk sits on was made later around 360AD when they moved it to Constantinople. The depiction showing the moving is of that time and not nearly 2,000 years ealier. Nevermind 4 or 5,000 years ealier for other larger obelisks.

Moving the obelisk at that time is a mighty feat but this doesn't prove anything about the Egyptians ability to move obelisks or mega blocks. It just proves the Greeks could move a relative smaller weight much later when logistics improved. When others could move smaller weights as well as tech improved.

But we are talking about 2,000 to 5,000 years earlier with much bigger obelisks and blocks when there was not suppose to be more progressed and modern logistics like the wheel and steel and pulleys ect.

The Obelisk of Theodosius weighed around maybe 150 to 200 tons at the time as almost half was destroyed. The bottom heavier part. So compare that to the unfinished obelisk at 1200 tons with more primitive tools. Big difference. I don't think even the more contemporary Greeks could have achieved this nor today without improved tech to help.

So I don't think moving a small obelisk 2,000 to 5,000 years later does not show the ancient Egyptians could move these massive weights.

 

[stevevw]

You have been caught out lying despite your spin doctoring drivel and if you persist in perpetrating these lies I will start reporting your posts.

Where have I been causght out. There is absolutely nothing. What on earth are you going to report me for sticking by my beliefs and views on this topic. Give me a break. What is this big brother lol.

But I can see below you have not even named my so called offense. Please tell me as I would like to know. I don't treat this like a game or have an agenda. I don't care.

Then there is the comment of showing you the evidence of why Dunn is so wrong, I could not have made it any clearer and my remarks on your limited comprehension skills is therefore an observation not a personal attack.

Well I don't think you have made it clear. I have never heard of your complaint by any other person. The main objection is the spiral. Most objections are that Petries core is not spiral.

I have never heard anyone make this objection. Is this your own claim or did you read it somewhere.

So let me get this straight. Your saying Dunn based the feed rate on the pitch and because the pitch is similar to the speed and feed rate and this cannot show a fast feed rate. Is that about right.

Then why did Dunn mention the spiral. What was it about the spiralling that Dunn was on about.

On top of this is the simplistic "Simon says" argument which you can't even get right by mispresenting both Dunn and Petrie by failing to understand the difference between feed rate per revolution and feed rate as a time dependant variable, the maths of which was explained but clearly went over your head and not worth my time repeating it.

Like I said how come no one else has ever mentioned this. Its all about the spiral. I understand what your saying. But for example Dunn says the speed of the drill has nothing to do with the amount the drill bites down into the granite.

The rotation may be very slow or faster but the same amount of granite will be eaten into per rotation regardless of the speed of the drilling. Its more that the fixed points are cutting into the walls and spiralling down each rotation due to the immense pressure on the drill thus cutting deeper than a hosizontal rotation.

OK you say that I don't understand. Then what do you say about Dunn stating that it was the spiralling that was casing the faster feed rate. Not fast in speed but in drilling down deeper each rotation. Why did Dunn mention the spiralling. being the reason. Explain how he did not mean this was not related to the feed rate.

The best should be left to last which highlights pitfalls of quote mining, you should have read the entire article particularly the conclusion.

If makes your ranting and raving about bad science completely irrelevant as it was never the intention to duplicate whatever method the Egyptians used, but what it tells us it doesn't require some super technology as advocated by Dunn as the feed rate per revolution (pitch) as shown in this thread is far in excess of modern drilling technology.
This means there is something wrong with Dunn's reasoning which was explained to you but unfortunately you failed to comprehend it.

Are you using one of my papers to support your arguement but then reject the other parts that don't.

Yes the same author disputed Petrie at the time. I have already mentioned this. The 1983 paper I linked deals with the dispute between Lucas and Petrie. THis find in support of Petrie regarding a fixed point cutting. But Lucas did not dispute Petrie on his observations and measurements. He agreed it was a spiral groove. Which was my point.

But to then use the parts you want to prove me wrong is just creating a strawman because I have never said annything about what sort of advanced tech. Just that the signatures in the rocks cannot be explained by the tools in the records and that the signatures look like modern maching. I think thats the same for anyone who is saying this. They don't know what caused the signatures.

The problem with your logic in using my article is that I could do the same. You linked the Stokes experiment which has been shown to not duplicate Petries core. So two can play that game.

But I am not playing games. I have nothing to prove or any invested interest only that its an interesting topic to dive into besides other topics which I have covered. I don't care whether theres no advanced tech. The Egyptians have already proved themselves amazing and advanced and we all recognise that.

I am just looking a bit closer and presenting the evidence I find. But I do know you care and perhaps too much so by the level of personal attacks that have gradually increased as time has gone by. That shows you have more invested whatever that is than myself. I honestly don't care.

But I am not going to be intimidated or bullied by personal attacks just for expressing my beliefs and what I think is evdience. All opinions should be welcome and not attacked.

Maybe its better that we give it a rest as it just seems to be going back and forth the same old way. We can both do a bit of research and thinking and come back to it. Or not.

 

[stevevw]

The video was specifically on "precisionism" -- taking too much meaning from the apparent "precision" of an artifact, particularly stone ones. (i.e., what you whole thing on these threads has been.)

Ah I havn't mentioned the vases for a while now. I think its good viewing. Certainly you can wwatch the tests being done and see the results as they happen. Thats pretty good.

Why not make a big thing. Its amazing that these 5,000 year old vases are made so well compared to even vases 3,000 years later. There is geometry and math in those vases beyond what we would do and you wonder how they could keep 1,000's of reference points all in proper relations in a 3 D object all at the same time without a wheel or any stencil or guide.

He said nothing about saws.

He said nothing about any particular tools and that wasn't the point. It was that he made the false claim that a primitive simple and inadequate tool is the same as a modern tool. That its the person and not the tool. That is not always the case. Modern and improved tools with a good craftman is better than primitive inadequate tools and a good craftsman.

Somehow you missed his entire argument about periods where the tools are well known and fine artists show high precision in their works like in medieval Europe.

Yes for the same tool we have great artists who display more precision that other artists for that time or even beyond. Like you said Michelangel and church architects.

But applied to the Egyptians its a false analogy because for practical reasons the tools are inadequate and cannot account for all the signatures. It would be like saying the builders of the Golden Gate bridge use a toy tool kit. The tools are inadequate in the first place to account for the signatures regardless of individual artistry or ability.

He's just letting the audience know that a big pusher of "precisionism" is your favorite machinist.

Actually if you mean Dunn no he basically came into all this due to his engineering background and the structure of the pyramids. Well before anyone was talking about precision works. He just got interested as the vases were linked as they were the contents of the pyramids. He has the equipment to measure the preciseness. Not many people are doing it.

But its a fallacy to make out because he specialises in Egyptian tech that he is some woo merchant when his approach is pretty scientisic. In fact thats the main fallacy skeptics push that everything that Dunnand others say is woo. They never engage but assume woo. Its the classic misrepresentation to shut down any credibility.

Not only does he not ignore methods for creating large flat surfaces, he directly mentions that they exist and are known. No special lost tools and methods needed to explain such things.

Did he I didn't hear him explain how a completely inadequate tool that we know cannot produce a super flat surface with sharp edges when it was not designed to do that in the first place.

Sure super flat surfaces have come along much later when tech improved but we are talking 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. Nothing has matched these works in Egypt since or anywhere for that matter. Apaper from the similar works in other cultures around the same time. Strangly this all stopped mopre or less and reverted to less quality works. Does he acknowledge this.

He doesn't speak of wheels but "arbors" like those used in a lathe. Many of the objects mentioned in these threads clearly show evidence in their roundness for turning of tools about a point. No one doubts that.

But your going to need a lathe or a wheel mechanism which was not invented back then. None have been found and the claim is the works were created only by the tools found in the records.

If there was some lathe or wheel mechanism that allowed the work to spin fast enough to make precision works then that in itself is advanced tech for that period because it didn't really come about until; much later.

He speaks not at all about megaliths. When he speaks of the intent of a particular shape, or interpreting the final shape as the intent of the artist is related to how such items are formed with hand control (instead of with jigs or computer programming on a lathe) When turning wood or stone you can only remove, not add, so an error gets smoothed out and the final shape is not the "intended" one.

Ok but how does the person make such precision by hand, by touch and sight and no guidence to ensure perfect lines and ratios rto other reference points on a 3D object. Just changing tools or too much pressure or not enough will introduce errors. These vases are near perfect within a hair or two in all relations to geometry and math. That cannot be achieved by sight and touch.

I question how carefully you watched it. Perhaps you should try again once or twice more.

Ok I will have another watch later and think about it. But he got me about a minute in with a fallacy which I knew was going to have more. But I persisted lol.

Look I am not disagreeing that humans can achieve almost the impossible, But this seems a little too far. At least enough to have doubts and investigate exactly whats going on rather than just assume 'yeah they did it with the tools found and manpower and will power'. You can't make a silk purse ourt of a pigs ear lol.

 

[stevevw]

Still, the theme of 'Precisionism' explains the incoherency of @stevevw's argument this far.
It may be more productive to tackle that, rather than the facade of Petrie's one-off core #7.

Wait a minute. I was just told to stick to the drill cores in the OP. Now it seems others want to expand the thread. If so then don't object when I post other stuff about precision cuts in rocks, or vases, boxes and statues.

It would be fun but I don't want to get in trouble for linking evidence lol.

 

[stevevw]

I m trying to take a different approach to working out the issue of ancient advanced tech. I think it will be good to take an epistimological approach to help understand whats going on and bring some context.

So my question is do you think there is any good reasons why people come to believe that ancient people like the Egyptians had advanced tech.

Is there an appearance that people see that causes them to believe they had advanced tech and were fooled. Or is there not even any appearence of advanced tech in the first place.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No this is a fallacy. If you give a person a small saw and rock hammer and they produce a sports car we can definitely say no matter how determined they are they cannot produce a sports car.

When cars are made out of rock then this analogy will have relevance.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ah I havn't mentioned the vases for a while now. I think its good viewing. Certainly you can wwatch the tests being done and see the results as they happen. Thats pretty good.

Why not make a big thing. Its amazing that these 5,000 year old vases are made so well compared to even vases 3,000 years later. There is geometry and math in those vases beyond what we would do and you wonder how they could keep 1,000's of reference points all in proper relations in a 3 D object all at the same time without a wheel or any stencil or guide.

It is quite round (circular in various cross sections) and the central axis is quite vertical, but I'm not sure what other "math and geometry" you think are embedded in it. (1000's of reference points, does that just mean they measured the surface position at a lot of points?)

He said nothing about any particular tools and that wasn't the point. It was that he made the false claim that a primitive simple and inadequate tool is the same as a modern tool. That its the person and not the tool. That is not always the case. Modern and improved tools with a good craftman is better than primitive inadequate tools and a good craftsman.

Yes for the same tool we have great artists who display more precision that other artists for that time or even beyond. Like you said Michelangel and church architects.

But applied to the Egyptians its a false analogy because for practical reasons the tools are inadequate and cannot account for all the signatures. It would be like saying the builders of the Golden Gate bridge use a toy tool kit. The tools are inadequate in the first place to account for the signatures regardless of individual artistry or ability.

I don't think you understand the analogy and I didn't mention one of the minor details of the video that you may have missed. In the video, while discussing "precisionism", the presenter puts up, but does not discuss, a figure showing the measurements of symmetry in an ancient Egyptian statue of a face. The measurements show a great deal of symmetry. By mentioning other well measured later artifacts made by hand with similar levels of precision and symmetry it demonstrates that the precision or symmetry itself is not the issue. Only claims about the viability of the tools to work the specific material.

Actually if you mean Dunn no he basically came into all this due to his engineering background and the structure of the pyramids. Well before anyone was talking about precision works. He just got interested as the vases were linked as they were the contents of the pyramids. He has the equipment to measure the preciseness. Not many people are doing it.

Yes of course I meant Dunn. His "engineering background" is about modern tools and metals, not ancient techniques and stone.

But its a fallacy to make out because he specialises in Egyptian tech that he is some woo merchant when his approach is pretty scientisic. In fact thats the main fallacy skeptics push that everything that Dunnand others say is woo. They never engage but assume woo. Its the classic misrepresentation to shut down any credibility.

I've seen his pyramid book/website. He's definitely a woo merchant, but that is not directly related to the claims about high quality stone work.

Did he I didn't hear him explain how a completely inadequate tool that we know cannot produce a super flat surface with sharp edges when it was not designed to do that in the first place.

Sure super flat surfaces have come along much later when tech improved but we are talking 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. Nothing has matched these works in Egypt since or anywhere for that matter. Apaper from the similar works in other cultures around the same time. Strangly this all stopped mopre or less and reverted to less quality works. Does he acknowledge this.
'

More like 4600 to 4800 years ago. The specific methods for making flat surfaces were not described in that short video, but the existence of the techniques seems widely known by actual archeologists.

But your going to need a lathe or a wheel mechanism which was not invented back then. None have been found and the claim is the works were created only by the tools found in the records.

If there was some lathe or wheel mechanism that allowed the work to spin fast enough to make precision works then that in itself is advanced tech for that period because it didn't really come about until; much later.

Drills existed. See video below for a demonstration of some related techniques.

Ok but how does the person make such precision by hand, by touch and sight and no guidence to ensure perfect lines and ratios rto other reference points on a 3D object. Just changing tools or too much pressure or not enough will introduce errors. These vases are near perfect within a hair or two in all relations to geometry and math. That cannot be achieved by sight and touch.

Dunn may have proved that vase was a 20th century forgery. But so far only one vase with no provenance has been measured to high precision.

Ok I will have another watch later and think about it. But he got me about a minute in with a fallacy which I knew was going to have more. But I persisted lol.

Look I am not disagreeing that humans can achieve almost the impossible, But this seems a little too far. At least enough to have doubts and investigate exactly whats going on rather than just assume 'yeah they did it with the tools found and manpower and will power'. You can't make a silk purse ourt of a pigs ear lol.

How many hours have you spend watching "unchartedX" videos? I think you need to work on you stamina.

Here's another short video showing the manufacture of a hard stone vase using tools from early dynastic Egypt. It is not a precise as the vase that Dunn has obsessed with, but it is a first attempt made by non-expert stone workers.

 

[BCP1928]

It is quite round (circular in various cross sections) and the central axis is quite vertical, but I'm not sure what other "math and geometry" you think are embedded in it. (1000's of reference points, does that just mean they measured the surface position at a lot of points?)

I don't think you understand the analogy and I didn't mention one of the minor details of the video that you may have missed. In the video, while discussing "precisionism", the presenter puts up, but does not discuss, a figure showing the measurements of symmetry in an ancient Egyptian statue of a face. The measurements show a great deal of symmetry. By mentioning other well measured later artifacts made by hand with similar levels of precision and symmetry it demonstrates that the precision or symmetry itself is not the issue. Only claims about the viability of the tools to work the specific material.

Yes of course I meant Dunn. His "engineering background" is about modern tools and metals, not ancient techniques and stone.

I've seen his pyramid book/website. He's definitely a woo merchant, but that is not directly related to the claims about high quality stone work.

More like 4600 to 4800 years ago. The specific methods for making flat surfaces were not described in that short video, but the existence of the techniques seems widely known by actual archeologists.

Drills existed. See video below for a demonstration of some related techniques.

Dunn may have proved that vase was a 20th century forgery. But so far only one vase with no provenance has been measured to high precision.

How many hours have you spend watching "unchartedX" videos? I think you need to work on you stamina.

Here's another short video showing the manufacture of a hard stone vase using tools from early dynastic Egypt. It is not a precise as the vase that Dunn has obsessed with, but it is a first attempt made by non-expert stone workers.

I'm surprised you are still going around and around with Steve on this topic and after an overlong previous thread on the same topic at that.

Steve does not know anything at all about how to achieve precision with hand tools. He has fanciful ideas about it which are laughable to anyone who has ever done precision work with hand tools. He cites experts who wouldn't necessarily have much personal hands on experience with it either and can't even draw reasonable conclusions from his own sources. I don't know if ancient Egyptians used methods and tools we are not now aware of or not, but so far there is no convincing evidence of it, only ignorant incredulity.

 

[sjastro]

Where have I been causght out. There is absolutely nothing. What on earth are you going to report me for sticking by my beliefs and views on this topic. Give me a break. What is this big brother lol.

But I can see below you have not even named my so called offense. Please tell me as I would like to know. I don't treat this like a game or have an agenda. I don't care.

Well I don't think you have made it clear. I have never heard of your complaint by any other person. The main objection is the spiral. Most objections are that Petries core is not spiral.

I have never heard anyone make this objection. Is this your own claim or did you read it somewhere.

So let me get this straight. Your saying Dunn based the feed rate on the pitch and because the pitch is similar to the speed and feed rate and this cannot show a fast feed rate. Is that about right.

Then why did Dunn mention the spiral. What was it about the spiralling that Dunn was on about.

Like I said how come no one else has ever mentioned this. Its all about the spiral. I understand what your saying. But for example Dunn says the speed of the drill has nothing to do with the amount the drill bites down into the granite.

The rotation may be very slow or faster but the same amount of granite will be eaten into per rotation regardless of the speed of the drilling. Its more that the fixed points are cutting into the walls and spiralling down each rotation due to the immense pressure on the drill thus cutting deeper than a hosizontal rotation.

OK you say that I don't understand. Then what do you say about Dunn stating that it was the spiralling that was casing the faster feed rate. Not fast in speed but in drilling down deeper each rotation. Why did Dunn mention the spiralling. being the reason. Explain how he did not mean this was not related to the feed rate.

Are you using one of my papers to support your arguement but then reject the other parts that don't.

Yes the same author disputed Petrie at the time. I have already mentioned this. The 1983 paper I linked deals with the dispute between Lucas and Petrie. THis find in support of Petrie regarding a fixed point cutting. But Lucas did not dispute Petrie on his observations and measurements. He agreed it was a spiral groove. Which was my point.

But to then use the parts you want to prove me wrong is just creating a strawman because I have never said annything about what sort of advanced tech. Just that the signatures in the rocks cannot be explained by the tools in the records and that the signatures look like modern maching. I think thats the same for anyone who is saying this. They don't know what caused the signatures.

The problem with your logic in using my article is that I could do the same. You linked the Stokes experiment which has been shown to not duplicate Petries core. So two can play that game.

But I am not playing games. I have nothing to prove or any invested interest only that its an interesting topic to dive into besides other topics which I have covered. I don't care whether theres no advanced tech. The Egyptians have already proved themselves amazing and advanced and we all recognise that.

I am just looking a bit closer and presenting the evidence I find. But I do know you care and perhaps too much so by the level of personal attacks that have gradually increased as time has gone by. That shows you have more invested whatever that is than myself. I honestly don't care.

But I am not going to be intimidated or bullied by personal attacks just for expressing my beliefs and what I think is evdience. All opinions should be welcome and not attacked.

Maybe its better that we give it a rest as it just seems to be going back and forth the same old way. We can both do a bit of research and thinking and come back to it. Or not.

Another long rambling incoherent post based on misconceptions and misunderstandings.
If you cannot even grasp the simplest concept such as the conclusion I quoted was from the link you referenced frequently as being unscientific it pointless to have any further discussions as it reminds me of the Mark Twain quote about arguing with fools.

 

[sjastro]

Who cares? @sjastro has clearly defined the parameters and their interrelationships, which is repeatable in properly controlled physical experiments.
Petrie and Dunn were using pub-speak and imprecise measurement techniques (by todays standards) on #7.

(Pity he appears to have been asleep during any Physics education training he supposedly had).

There is no 'spiral cut' if the Standard Deviation of the distribution of the groove measurements is large (which is the case for #7).

Pity they don't clearly and formally define what their 'spiral' supposedly is ..
Its only important for them in order to push their agendas (whatever they were).

What bunkum!
If a spiral cannot be defined, (or physically justified from data), then its perfectly logical to not concur that one exists in the first place!

Petrie's and Dunn's comments don't even line up.

Petrie
First we have a circular piece of granite, grooved round and round by a graving point. The grooves here are continuous forming a spiral and in one point a single groove may be traced around the piece for a length of five rotations equal to 3 feet. The grooves 1/100 of an inch deep in quartz must need a pressure on the point of much over a hundredweight.
Dunn
'The most fascinating feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inch per revolution of the drill. It was 500 times greater than modern diamond drills, but the rotation of the drill would not have been as fast as the modern drill's 900 revolutions per minute.'

The dimensions of the No.7 sample according to Petrie are 2.7" diameter x 4.5" length.

The circumference is π x 2.7 ≈ 8.5" and 5 rotations gives 5 x 8.5 = 42.5" which is not 3 feet or 36".
This assumes the grooves are horizontal but when you include spiral angle of the grooves which is determined from the axial feed rate = length/number of rotations = 4.5 /5 = 0.9, the total length = 5 x √(0.9²+ 8.5²) ≈ 42.75" which is even worse.

The axial feed rate is in fact the pitch which according to the Petrie sample is 0.9"/rotation and not 0.1"/rotation as claimed by Dunn.

 

[sjastro]

Since this a thread about AI, let AI address the misconceptions in this thread.

(1) Explain that the feed rate per revolution is the same as pitch when applied to the striation patterns found on Petrie's No. 7 sample.

​

GPT-4o erred in one respect the pitch is not constant which is ironical as it measured the pitch and found considerable variation.

​

(2) Is this spiral pattern an example of pitch?

​

In the process of answering my question its Python code converted the image into a 3D representation.