Archae Solenhofen <solenhofen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I will ask again... what evidence do you have the in situ unweathered
> rocks of Member II behave this way?
Unweathered... I suppose you never read Davidovits book's? But I did my
According to Davidovits, the rock is artificially weathered. It's not
simply soaked overnight in clearwater. It is soaked then dry in cycles
until complete disagregation. It is a very similar process than ASTM D
4843 Standard Test Method. For rocks of member II, one to three cycles
of soaking/drying are necessary, depending on the composition of the
layer (See my comment about the clay ratio below).
So the rocks was actually weathered.
I asked you if you were referring to Harrel and Penrod because they
published in Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 41, pp. 358-363
(1993) that they soaked rock to check if it was disagregating in water.
They report it did not after several week of soaking.
But in Table 1, they also report that none of their samples came from
Gisa! So the rocks they tested were not the good one. Very annoying...
Especially when you consider that it is the sole paper, based on
experiments, that says the rocks of member II do not disaggregate ...
You claimed many times that the rock does not contain much clay, and the
silt/sand fraction is quartz only.
You notably mention that Klemm and Klemm (1993) are supporting this
view. I quote:
"This is also supported by Klemm and Klemm (1993)
petrographic work on the rocks of the Member II quarries as well."
However, I did not find it in their book, written in German. There is
nowhere any mention of any analysis of sand+silt+clay fraction, neither
on Member II quarries. Could you give me the exact page number you're
referring to? I'm afraid there nowhere to be found.
Then I would like to come back to the Table 2 in Gauri (1984). I guess
that the amount of clastic material composition was determined by
sedimentation. If this is the case, and also with other methods
involving water, it becomes obvious for the experts that the values
found for clays are too low, i.e. the values for silt too high. This is
because of the results from Table 1 that lists the amount of the soluble
salts. You'll find in the book "An introduction to clay colloid
chemistry, for clay technologists, geologists and soil scientists" by H.
van Olphen, Interscience Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, 1963, following
Page 8-9 :
"Particle interaction : ...The pictures changes completely when a small
amount of salt - a few tens of one percent - is added to the clay
dispersion. The particles begin to stick together upon collision and
agglomerates grow in the suspension, as shown by Figure 6. When the
salt-containing suspension is observed with the naked eye, the
agglomerates appear as flocks which settle rather quickly... This
phenomenon is called flocculation or coagulation.."
Page 17 : C. Flocculation (particle agglomeration)
"As mentioned before, flocculation, or the agglomeration of particles,
occurs when salt is added to the stable sol..... The agglomeration of
particles is an irreversible process; the particles are unable to
disengage spontaneously as fast as or faster than they associate... "
I guess you have noticed the sentence : a few tens of one percent. Well,
what happens when, like in Table 1 in Gauri (1984), the amount of
soluble salts is in the range of 1 to 5 percent? We get a wonderful
flocculation of clay particles greater than 2 microns, i.e. the
formation of silt particles. Consequently, the amount of clays is much
higher in the limestone than the values listed in Table 2 in Gauri
Let us come back now to your sentence :
"Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999), tell us on page 198 that X-ray
diffraction of the sand and silt fraction of the rocks indicates only
quartz being present."
This means that, according to Table 2 of Gauri (1984), with only one
exception, the layer 3ii, the concentration of SiO2 in the Sphinx rock,
ranges from 4 to 25 per cent. Your quotation is either wrong, or
incomplete. Because I do not have access to Gauri & Bandyopadhyay
(1999), I would be very grateful if you could provide a much larger
quotation. As a matter of fact, one knows, from all analysis published
so far on the chemical composition of Giza limestone, that the amount of
SiO2 is in the range of 4-5 per cent, maximum. Some hard limestone may
have up to 9-12 per cent SiO2, especially those constituting the casing
stones and statues, yet these limestones are not found in the Giza
bedrock. They come from another place.
By the way. You still don't comment much on Barsoum's evidences from
their microstructure analysis. So, can't you refute their evidences?
"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
Voltaire vs Leibniz