Jon Ellison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that really red granite being worked in the video?


At 0:50 Lehner calls it a block of granite.

I got a kick out of Roger's question "So the copper is only guiding the sand but the sand is doing the cutting".

The elephant in the room is that the sand will show preference to cutting the far softer copper rather than cutting any granite. What we don't learn in this video is the ratio of how much more copper is consumed than granite. We've seen this elsewhere and the there are integer multiples of copper mass consumed vs. granite which requires frequent resharping (re-toothing) of the copper and many spare copper saws lying around, ready for frequent replacement.

Also, no statement about comparing the grain found in the artifacts compared to what we see when sand is used. I think it was Gorelick and Gwinnett who showed in their "Lucas vs. Petrie" faux debate that it couldn't have been sand.

Also, no discussion about how they could saw such a perfect planar surface using such a blade.

Look at how loosely the copper tube is sittin in the hole at 4:42 and yet the lip of the whole is so sharply squared off. Looks like the hole is at least 1/2" wider than the diameter of the drill. How can that be?

Again, let's try that with 4500 year old copper sheet technology before applauding Stocks. I think if he had sufficient data he would have published it in his book, and yet it's not there, let alone attempting to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09-Apr-17 20:26 by Origyptian.