> Corpuscles Wrote:
> > The table you did post would be (or should be)
> > vast interest to the GHMB rock expert Archae.
> > you noticed his mentions (claims) of you can
> > scratch it with your fingernail? LOL! Stocks
> > reckons a 1:3 or 1:2 attrition rate on copper
> > on soft stones limestone , calcite etc.
> Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.
> The 1:3 ratio is based on volume. When you base it
> on weight, more copper is consumed than granite
> This is also reflected in another "waste powder"
> table later on (p. 126):
> > I believe the tube drill depth results are on
> > 137 if my notes are correct?
> You may be referring to the table on page 115. His
> methods are not described in detail, and it's not
> clear what kind of "tube" he's using as well as
> its diameter or wall thickness:
> On page 165 he makes the following statement
> regarding drilling the lumen of a small
> limestone vase:
- "The maximum internal diameter of the
> vase measured 8 cm, its minimum diameter being 5.5
> cm, with a mouth diameter of 4.5 cm and a depth of
> 10 cm (Figures 5.38, 5.39). The total time for
> manufacture was 22.5 hours."
> > Anyway the point I was trying to make was that
> > folks here often quote the authority of Stocks
> > work yet do not seem to have studied the
> After being insulted by Stower for not having read
> the book, I suspected he might be wrong about
> Stocks' contentions and so I paid a lot for my
> copy because I wanted to see for myself what
> Stocks had to say. And it now seems pretty clear
> to me that he hadn't studied the book himself or
> else he would have plainly seen the catastrophic
> errors in Stocks' hypothesis and how Stocks, in
> his own words:
- - contradicts his own position on ancient
> - reveals the funerary (and not real-world)
> context of the exemplary tomb iconics
> - clearly portrays the farcical impossibility of
> the Rekhmire paintings
> - openly acknowledges the total absence of any
> physical evidence of the tools that he claims were
> used during the Old Kingdom
> > Clearly but unwittingly he proves that AE or
> > whomever did not make precision holes or cuts
> > the manner he hypothesises. His excuse is
> > he imagines with years of practice they would
> > infinitely better and overcome the inprecise
> > ragged gouges to arrive at clean sharp work.
> For whatever reason, Stocks seems to be
> withdrawing his hypothesis from the public.
Been looking at these copper attrition rates again.
Copper Mohs scale 2.5 - 3
Quartz Granite Mohs scale 7
Which seemingly would give us a copper loss rate of about 2 to 1, copper to granite.
However the Mohs scale is non linear
In terms of Absolute Hardness..
Quartz Granite 100
Should we not see a copper loss ratio of more like 10 - 1 ?
Force/Rotation Speed/Abrasive being equal and opposite.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10-May-16 14:47 by Jon Ellison.