Египетские пирамиды (из камня или бетона?)

Геополимеры

Геополимеры одна из разновидностей новых минеральных гидравлических вяжущих широкого назначения, получаемых щелочной активацией алюмосиликатного сырья природного и техногенного происхождения. Геополимеры представляют собой альтернативные портландцементу вяжущие, обеспечивающие определенное решение проблем ресурсои энергосбережения и экологии. Рассмотрены история создания, особенности составов, структуры, свойств и областей применения. //  cyberleninka.ru

 

Геополимеры одна из разновидностей новых минеральных гидравлических вяжущих широкого назначения, получаемых щелочной активацией алюмосиликатного сырья природного и техногенного происхождения.

 

,

e //  www.sciencedirect.com

 

The mystery of the construction of the great pyramids of Egypt could be elucidated by physico-chemical measurements on small pieces of the material. In this paper, we give several arguments against the present point of view of most Egyptologists who do not admit another method than hewn blocks. We give several pieces of evidence that the masonry was entirely built by a moulding procedure involving the use of ingredients that were all available in the region of Cairo.

 

ROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON CEMENT MICROSCOPY QUEBEC CITY, PQ, CANADA MAY 20 -24, 2007

THE GREAT PYRAMID DEBATE
Evidence from Detailed Petrographic Examinations of Casing Stones from the Great Pyramid of Khufu, a Natural Limestone from Tura, and a Man-made (Geopolymeric) Limestone

 

in 1974 a French research chemist, Joseph
Davidovits, proposed a radically different hypothesis that the pyramid blocks are not quarried
stone but cast-in-place “concrete” prepared with
the soft, marly kaolinitic limestone of Giza
that was readily disintegrated in water and mi
xed with locally available lime and natron. The
lime-natron combination, according to Davidovits
, dissociates the kaolinitic clay from the
limestone and forms an alkali-aluminosili
cate (zeolitic) “glue”, which he termed
“geopolymer”. The “man-made” hypothesis was pr
oposed as an alternative explanation to the
apparent mysteries associated with the “carve
-and-hoist” hypothesis in regard to the methods
of construction and observations of
some “unusual” minerals in pyramid samples that are rare
in natural limestone.
The purposes of the present study are to investig
ate: (a) evidence of microchemical signatures
of the proposed lime-natron-clay-based geopolym
eric chemistry in the binder phases of the
pyramid samples; (b) textural, mineralogical
, microstructural, and binder-microchemical
comparisons among pyramid samples, natura
l limestone from Tura, and geopolymeric
limestone; and © the reported “
unusual” constituents in the py
ramid samples, if any, and
their possible sources.

 

Ever since the first proposition of this “man-mad
e” origin of pyramid blocks by Davidovits,
mainly through his book
The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved
(1988), a number of scientists
have published a wealth of data fiercely challe
nging this hypothesis and providing evidence
in favor of a “geologic” origin (Campbell
and Folk, 1991, Folk and Campbell 1992,
Freestone et al. 1984, Mehta 1988, Gauri 1984,
1988, Moores 1992, Schoch 1992, Bradley
and Middleton 1988, Freestone and Middlet
on 1986, 2007; Harrell a
nd Penrod 1993, Ingram
et al. 1993, Klemm and Klemm 2001, Novokshchenov 1996, Parry 2000). Contrary to the
original proposition of geopolymeric origin from Davidovits, an eminent chemist, the
challenges in favor of the natural (i.e., geologic)
origin of the blocks were mostly provided by
both engineers and geologists with expertise in
limestone petrology. Therefore, a lack of
understanding of the geopolymer chemistry by
the geologists and engineers is sometimes
mentioned by Davidovits as his rebuttal.

 

A reliable set of data derived from comprehensive laboratory investigations by petrographers,
materials scientists, and geochemists on a range of actual pyramid samples reveals the truth about “natural” versus “man-made” origin of pyramid blocks.