Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
OM

All the answers and much more, can be found on Davidovits website Geopolymer Institute
It is highly technical chemistry discussion but I will try to generally address the questions.

There is always extreme danger of one amateur, relaying information to another, but:


Open mind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Corpuscles Wrote:
>
> "Note the only andesite is in the renovated back
> fill. The structure is essentially reconstituted
> limestone, so no igneous component, derr….
> despite dipstick comments in the thread."
>
> I have had a hard time keeping straight which rock
> is which in the various sites around the world. I
> had thought for the longest time that Sacsayhuaman
> was igneous. And it was a nice convenient way to
> perceive the work simplistically segmented into
> pillow stones = igneous. Then you can
> oversimplify the 'magic' to being a material
> manipulation of the crystal structure totally
> uniformly, where as in limestone, if you only
> manipulate the crystalline content of that rock,
> then it will look different, like the core blocks
> of GP.
>
> But its not that simple clearly.

One of the big problems in "mysteries" around the world is that the stone is often inadvertently incorrectly identified.

>
> Limestone is formed by pressure. And you can't
> melt it and reform it to appear the same like
> igneous might be able to. But to reconstitute it
> back into typical limestone hardness, you need to
> simulate that pressure somehow. Or, as the
> geopolymer theory suggests, that hardness is
> entirely based on the properties of the binder. A
> 'magic' binder of sorts, that survives thousands
> of years, so we're all vulnerable to the WOO
> moniker, to be fair.

Limestone is not entirely a product of pressure (some yes). In nature further up the family tree it becomes more important or critical (marble) but harder forms (such as Dolomite) is a function of whether traces of alkali metals are present in the sea water especially a magnesium compound.

Natural stone has its own small percentage of naturally formed binder. Geopolymer and some Alkali Activated Materials (AAM) merely mimic nature. However modern man has incorporated other irrelevant stuff in modern science like blast furnace slag (to find a reuse for it)

As for long lasting. I think you are in USA? There is no man made concrete over 300 years old there? Yet you have likely seen many old building sites where concrete has perished, crumbled decayed with concrete cancer or weathering etc?
On the other hand Roman concrete (based on a mimic of nature formula) is still going strong 2000 years later.
>
> So I guess my next big question to the geopolymer
> camp is this: Are you proposing that the ancients
> invented a compound from available sources that
> cures so hard as to simulate the hardness of
> natural rock, which by far outperforms most
> typical modern day concrete, even with the
> advantage of steel bar reinforcement inside?

In geopolymer the component of the binder is generally about 3% to max 7% of the stone.
Davidovits has several vids or papers showing the comparative strength attributes.

Compressive strength is roughly equivalent., because it is the natural aggregate or stone that provides that. The steel reinforcement largely is there to provide some tensile strength.

If your driveway at your house was extremely professionally done, it will have a hardness of circa 40 MPA. If you have hand mixed a path or such likely circa 20 MPA max.

Davidovits standard for limestone based geopolymer concrete is 90 MPA and he claims they have achieved 150 MPA.
In slabs they still sometimes put in steel reinforcement but Geopolymer has extraordinary tensile strength already.

It is a polymer. A 3 dimensional molecular repeating chemical arrangement. Sometimes like helical DNA therefore "living stones"
>
> If I consider the possibility that we can, at
> present, duplicate that binder performance, then I
> have to assume the reason why it hasn't taken over
> the global industry is because its so cost
> preventative a process to make. And that
> potential high cost is either because of extremely
> expensive and complex advanced processing plants
> to produce it, OR, that its constituent material
> components are rare enough to make it very costly
> to find and extract in large enough volumes.

At present it is more expensive. However that is to do with volume more than ingredients.
Eventually it will take over Portland cement in many parts of the world. There is an Australian company (working closely with Davidovits) to address the Middle East / Mediterranean market. The climate and conditions are extremely harsh on concrete there they need something far more durable. (Think Dubai)
Also geopolymer is extremely fire resistant. Normal concrete explodes at approx. 200 C, geoploymer is not degraded at all till over 700 C
The hoohar over Global warming - geopolymer does not emit Co2 - One of mans main producers of Co2 is concrete.
>
> And that cost calculation is also presumably
> taking into account the significantly reduced
> amount of material necessary, (as it so thoroughly
> outperforms regular concrete 1:1), while used in
> conjunction with rebar to give it every advantage,
> to duplicate the present day concrete performance
> industry standards. So even having to use far
> less of this material, its still financially
> infeasible.

I have not explored all the cost benefit stuff. I refer you to his website it is there in library of papers.
>
> If the answer to the above question is yes, then I
> have to assume you are open to the existence of a
> highly advanced ancient global civilization.
> Because building materials should be the spear tip
> of our best applications of the highest level of
> material science, and if we haven't even worked
> through the economies of scale to implement today,
> what they used all over the world in ancient
> times, then our present level of advancement pales
> in comparison.

You are touching on some areas which restricts many from accepting/ considering the possibility of geopolymer use by Ancients.

We think one needs a chemistry degree, a lab coat, an electron microscope, X ray and spectrographic analytic machine to do it. That is how it is done in 20th/ 21st Century.

But all it is doing is replicating and understanding what happens in nature.
The ancients … let me be hypothetical... (my fantasy not Davidovits endorsed)
Ancients see limestone is full of seashells. It is far away from the sea. They think how does this happen???? must have something to do with the sea. They go to a dried up salt water lake. They observe that some of the "stone" saturated in water is soft and malleable (has kaolinic clay combined ) They find natron, they find lots of looses shells they "give it a go" mix it all up make a block, like they did with mud and straw before, and eventually find the mix that like magic hardens to better or equivalent to the natural stone

Similar story for decomposed igneous volcanic ash, involving acids and bird guano (potassium)etc

They didn't have to be super civilized nor high tech , just very observant of nature.

All the ingredients were readily available in vast quantities no smashing up of rocks to powder was necessary.

I should stop there or I will rant on to book length! LOL! there is so much more to it than is covered by intrepid 'mystery' hunters
Cheers

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 1485 Corpuscles 21-Dec-19 17:24
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 195 Open mind 22-Dec-19 02:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 154 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 05:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 134 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:06
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 92 thinkitover 23-Dec-19 10:05
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 157 ocka 22-Dec-19 09:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 126 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 18:01
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 123 Thanos5150 23-Dec-19 16:53
Re: Tiahuanaco architect named 90 molder 23-Dec-19 22:16
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 92 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 23:44
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 88 Thanos5150 24-Dec-19 16:47
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 74 Hanslune 25-Dec-19 01:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 114 Thanos5150 25-Dec-19 02:43
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 81 Hanslune 27-Dec-19 23:09
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 75 Thanos5150 28-Dec-19 17:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 89 Corpuscles 29-Dec-19 06:33
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 77 Merrell 29-Dec-19 14:38
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 75 Corpuscles 29-Dec-19 20:31
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 73 Merrell 29-Dec-19 23:54
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 60 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 00:03
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 59 Merrell 01-Jan-20 10:45
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 49 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 18:32
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 66 Open mind 31-Dec-19 19:33
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 53 Merrell 31-Dec-19 23:06
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 63 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 00:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 56 Open mind 01-Jan-20 03:02
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 89 Thanos5150 01-Jan-20 04:08
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 62 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 05:51
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 77 Thanos5150 01-Jan-20 06:59
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 71 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 19:40
Basalt Pavers 67 Barbelo 01-Jan-20 21:33
Re: Basalt Pavers 60 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 23:01
Re: Basalt Pavers 55 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 03:36
Re: Basalt Pavers 67 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 05:42
Re: Basalt Pavers 58 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 06:41
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 71 Thanos5150 02-Jan-20 02:17
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 75 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 05:03
Basalt Pillar 76 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 07:15
Re: Basalt Pillar 60 Open mind 02-Jan-20 15:43
Re: Basalt Pillar 67 Corpuscles 02-Jan-20 19:06
Re: Basalt Pillar 63 Barbelo 02-Jan-20 21:13
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 77 Thanos5150 02-Jan-20 18:08
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 80 Merrell 02-Jan-20 18:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 121 Martin Stower 03-Jan-20 11:15
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 70 Corpuscles 03-Jan-20 20:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 62 Merrell 03-Jan-20 21:45
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 68 Corpuscles 03-Jan-20 23:23
Sacsayhuaman 76 Barbelo 04-Jan-20 02:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 73 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 03:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 69 Thanos5150 04-Jan-20 03:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 64 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 05:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 112 Barbelo 04-Jan-20 11:16
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 15:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 66 Barbelo 05-Jan-20 20:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 54 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 23:55
Re: Sacsayhuaman 57 Corpuscles 05-Jan-20 21:41
Re: Sacsayhuaman 60 Barbelo 05-Jan-20 23:40
Re: Sacsayhuaman 61 Thanos5150 05-Jan-20 23:59
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Open mind 06-Jan-20 01:08
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 02:29
Re: Sacsayhuaman 59 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 03:50
Re: Sacsayhuaman 57 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 04:29
Re: Sacsayhuaman 63 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 05:10
Re: Sacsayhuaman 61 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 05:47
Re: Sacsayhuaman 66 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 16:53
Re: Sacsayhuaman 51 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 19:06
The Limestone Puddle 53 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 21:27
Re: Sacsayhuaman 57 Thanos5150 06-Jan-20 21:44
Re: Sacsayhuaman 55 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 22:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 65 Thanos5150 07-Jan-20 17:01
Re: Sacsayhuaman 51 Corpuscles 07-Jan-20 21:48
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Open mind 06-Jan-20 21:07
Re: Sacsayhuaman 56 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 21:30
Re: Sacsayhuaman 44 Open mind 07-Jan-20 20:43
Re: Sacsayhuaman 48 Open mind 06-Jan-20 13:44
Re: Sacsayhuaman 54 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 11:07
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Corpuscles 06-Jan-20 05:16
Re: Sacsayhuaman 55 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 10:36
Re: Sacsayhuaman 56 seasmith 06-Jan-20 14:28
Re: Sacsayhuaman 53 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 20:46
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Open mind 06-Jan-20 16:41
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Barbelo 06-Jan-20 21:12
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Open mind 07-Jan-20 15:05
Re: Sacsayhuaman 57 Corpuscles 07-Jan-20 21:25
Nonsensical or Unnecessary? 50 Barbelo 07-Jan-20 23:51
Re: Nonsensical or Unnecessary? 61 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 01:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Open mind 08-Jan-20 00:36
Re: Sacsayhuaman 51 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 00:58
Re: Sacsayhuaman 52 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 01:12
Re: Sacsayhuaman 47 Open mind 08-Jan-20 02:06
Re: Sacsayhuaman 55 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 03:20
Re: Sacsayhuaman 69 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 07:05
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 12:01
Re: Sacsayhuaman 46 Open mind 08-Jan-20 16:42
Re: Sacsayhuaman 51 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 18:24
Re: Sacsayhuaman 42 Open mind 08-Jan-20 20:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 21:44
LImestone vs Limestone 46 Barbelo 08-Jan-20 22:40
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 58 Corpuscles 08-Jan-20 23:47
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 54 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 01:57
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 60 Corpuscles 09-Jan-20 03:09
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 61 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 04:07
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 47 Open mind 09-Jan-20 16:06
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 48 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 20:49
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 47 Open mind 09-Jan-20 20:58
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 63 Barbelo 09-Jan-20 21:20
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 46 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:12
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 55 Corpuscles 09-Jan-20 17:15
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 48 Open mind 09-Jan-20 15:25
Re:Sacsayhuaman 43 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 07:00
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 41 Open mind 10-Jan-20 13:15
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 63 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 14:34
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 40 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:47
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 47 Open mind 10-Jan-20 15:58
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 50 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 21:07
Re: Re:Sacsayhuaman 42 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 21:00
Re: LImestone vs Limestone 65 Thanos5150 09-Jan-20 01:44
Tombomachay 57 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 06:25
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 54 Barbelo 10-Jan-20 07:30
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 91 Corpuscles 10-Jan-20 11:41
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 63 Barbelo 11-Jan-20 05:25
Re: Limestone vs Limestone 56 Corpuscles 12-Jan-20 01:24
Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 55 Barbelo 12-Jan-20 12:11
Re: Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 60 Corpuscles 12-Jan-20 20:56
Re: Now All You Have To Do Is Prove It 67 Open mind 13-Jan-20 16:19
Re: Sacsayhuaman 45 Open mind 08-Jan-20 23:22
Re: Sacsayhuaman 50 Open mind 08-Jan-20 14:23
Re: Sacsayhuaman 43 Merrell 08-Jan-20 17:57
On the fence... 54 Racho 08-Jan-20 04:51
Re: On the fence... 48 Open mind 08-Jan-20 15:24
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 66 Merrell 04-Jan-20 09:04
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 64 Corpuscles 05-Jan-20 09:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 65 Martin Stower 03-Jan-20 23:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 59 Corpuscles 04-Jan-20 00:34
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 45 Open mind 05-Jan-20 16:19
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 55 Open mind 02-Jan-20 03:37
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 63 Merrell 01-Jan-20 14:10
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 58 Corpuscles 01-Jan-20 18:41
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 96 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:13
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 87 Corpuscles 22-Dec-19 21:30
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 80 Open mind 22-Dec-19 22:12
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 74 WVK 23-Dec-19 15:21
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 71 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 21:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 65 Open mind 23-Dec-19 23:22
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 90 Hanslune 22-Dec-19 22:58
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 85 seasmith 23-Dec-19 03:04
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 79 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 07:20
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 80 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 09:43
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 71 Hanslune 23-Dec-19 23:28
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 90 Thanos5150 24-Dec-19 16:53
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 85 Hanslune 24-Dec-19 22:35
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 142 Thanos5150 23-Dec-19 19:29
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 147 Corpuscles 23-Dec-19 21:19
Re: Tiwanaku / Pumapunku Megaliths are Artificial Geopolymers 114 Enigcom 02-Jan-20 17:29


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.