The Giza Power Plant Read online

  There are more questions raised by the King's Chamber. At first glance, it appears to be just a room made from red granite. As we look closer, though, it poses more mysteries than the rest of the chambers and passages of the Great Pyramid combined. While poking around the pyramid, John Greaves partially uncovered one of these mysteries.

  Greaves was puzzled by the many features of the Great Pyramid that seemed to be inconsistent with any logical design for a tomb. The Grand Gallery was especially disturbing to this English mathematician and astronomer, whose mind was schooled in the orderliness of nature. He questioned that the Grand Gallery was built to serve as a stairway leading to the King's Chamber, for he had trouble making his way to the top. Its size, the corbeled walls, and the fact that it was built on such a steep angle did not indicate to him that it could have been used as a chamber either. Besides, in order to get to the Grand Gallery, he had to double over and squeeze his way through the Ascending Passage in much the same way as Al Mamun and his men did before him.

  FIGURE 8. Antechamber

  At the end of the Grand Gallery, stooping to enter the passage that led to the Antechamber, Greaves was baffled by the "portcullis" entrance, and he wondered why the walls, floor, and ceiling suddenly changed from limestone to granite. He could not even begin to fathom the complex Antechamber (see Figure 8).

  The passage leading from the Antechamber to the King's Chamber is actually smaller than the sarcophagus, or coffer, that sits within the chamber, so that would had to have been installed at the time the pyramid was under construction and before the ceiling beams over the King's Chamber were put in place. Regarding the King's Chamber, Greaves wondered why a single chamber, which housed a solitary, empty coffer, needed the protection of the tremendous amount of masonry that surrounded it. He questioned why a structure as huge as the Great Pyramid was necessary for a single burial.

  What is more, in the King's Chamber, Greaves observed small openings in both the north and south walls. They were not given much attention at first, and were thought to be receptacles for candles or lamps. However, after Howard-Vyse's assistant, Perring, was almost decapitated when a stone shot out of one opening and barely missed his head, it became clear that the "lamp receptacles" were actually the lower ends of shafts that ran through the body of the pyramid to the outside. The stone that almost injured Perring had evidently cleared some blockage in the shaft while it was making its way to the inner chamber, for immediately afterward a rush of cool air entered the chamber. It is reported that with the clearing of the shafts to the King's Chamber) the chamber maintained a constant temperature of 68° Fahrenheit, no matter what the weather or temperature was outside. This temperature is no longer constant because the tourists who go through the Great Pyramid nearly every day generate body heat and moisture. I have been left hot and sweaty each time I crawled through the Ascending Passage or climbed the Great Gallery. The problems associated with this elevation of temperature and humidity in the King's Chamber prompted the Egyptians to contract with Rudolph Gantenbrink, a German engineer, to install fans in the Northern and Southern Shafts to improve the circulation of air (see Figure 9).

  FIGURE 9. Southern Shaft in the King's Chamber

  What purpose do these shafts serve? Imagine the difficulty of including these shafts in the construction of the pyramid. If they were intended to supply the King's Chamber with air, a simpler method of construction could have been used, for instance, following a horizontal path along a course of masonry to the outside. This alternative method probably would have resulted in greater airflow as well. Because of these considerations, and the fact that the dead do not breathe, Egyptologists believe that the shafts were not intended to ventilate the chamber at all, but were constructed purely for symbolic or cultic reasons.

  In addition, there are significant technical problems associated with constructing the pyramid with the shafts on an incline. The limestone blocks that form the shafts on the north side would have needed precise compound angles on their adjoining faces as they turn to avoid the Grand Gallery (see Figure 10).

  FIGURE 10. Horizontal Airshaft vs. Angled Airshaft

  When I was inside the Great Pyramid in 1995, I noticed an iron gate covering an opening in the passageway between the Grand Gallery and the Antechamber. The iron gate was unlocked, so I took the opportunity to climb into a small tunnel with my flashlight to see where it went. When I reached the end, I found myself looking at what remains of the Northern Shaft, and I was able to witness the quality of fit between those limestone blocks. As I swept the shaft with my light, I could see the fan that Gantenbrink had installed to ventilate the chamber. The shafts were exposed on the bottom side, and I was able to see that they were cleanly cut, with square, sharp inside corners. Knowing of the precision built into the rest of the pyramid, and into other ancient artifacts I had seen in Egypt, I was not surprised by the quality of workmanship—though having worked with compound angles where features of a component have to fit together without any mismatch, I could not help but be impressed. This kind of precision is not coincidental, and the builders would not have invested the resources necessary to cut and construct this feature if there was not a real need for such precision. That likelihood in itself contradicts the symbolic or cultic reasons Egyptologists ascribe to the shafts. And besides, there are simpler ways of illustrating symbolism and cultism, such as the reliefs and paintings that the ancient Egyptians created with great skill.

  Any theory about the Great Pyramid should both satisfy the demands of logic and provide answers for all the relevant discoveries that have promoted so much perplexity in the past. As we have seen in this chapter, current theories regarding the function and construction of the pyramid fall short. A credible theory would have to explain the following conditions found inside the Great Pyramid:

  The selection of granite as the building material for the King's Chamber. It is evident that in choosing granite, the builders took upon themselves an extremely difficult task.

  The presence of four superfluous chambers above the King's Chamber.

  The characteristics of the giant granite monoliths that were used to separate these so-called "construction chambers."

  The presence of exuviae, or the cast-off shells of insects, that coated the chamber above the King's Chamber, turning those who entered black.

  The violent disturbance in the King's Chamber that expanded its walls and cracked the beams in its ceiling but left the rest of the Great Pyramid seemingly undisturbed.

  The fact that the guardians were able to detect the disturbance inside the King's Chamber, when there was little or no exterior evidence of it.

  The reason the guardians thought it necessary to smear the cracks in the ceiling of the King's Chamber with cement.

  The fact that two shafts connect the King's Chamber to the outside.

  The design logic for these two shafts—their function, dimensions, features, and so forth.

  Any theory offered for serious consideration concerning the Great Pyramid also would have to provide logical reasons for all the anomalies we have already discussed and several we soon will examine, including:

  The Antechamber.

  The Grand Gallery, with its corbeled walls and steep incline.

  The Ascending Passage, with its enigmatic granite barriers.

  The Well Shaft down to the Subterranean Pit.

  The salt encrustations on the walls of the Queen's Chamber.

  The rough, unfinished floor inside the Queen's Chamber.

  The corbeled niche cut into the east wall of the Queen's Chamber.

  The shafts that originally were not fully connected to the Queen's Chamber.

  The copper fittings discovered by Rudolph Gantenbrink in 1993.

  The green stone ball, grapnel hook, and cedar-like wood found in the Queen's Chamber shafts.

  The plaster of paris that oozed out of the joints inside the shafts.

  The repugnant odor that assailed early explorers.

&nb
sp; As I have said, there are reasons for everything, and each of the above items is assuredly the effect of some cause. When searching for a solution to the enigmas of the Great Pyramid, assuming that all other explanations do not satisfy us, we must take all the evidence into consideration, even the most seemingly trivial details. In the chapters that follow, I will examine these details to prove that even information that seems unimportant may have had a most significant cause, and what has previously received just a passing look by researchers may hold the key to solving the whole problem. Because current theories do not provide satisfying answers to the questions raised by the Great Pyramid, researchers continue to cut tunnels, dig passages, and probe the pyramid, using advanced electronic sounding devices in an attempt to acquire just one more secret. As my theory will show, however, answers to much of the mystery may lie in what already has been found.

  Chapter Three

  PRECISION UNPARALLELED

  After reading considerable material on the subject of the Great Pyramid and studying the drawings that accompanied the texts, it appeared to me that the opponents of the tomb theory had a valid point. With this in mind, I looked more closely at what I considered to be the most significant information regarding the Great Pyramid, which was the accuracy with which it was built. It soon became obvious to me that the researchers on both sides of the issue were sympathetic to the craftspeople involved in building the pyramids. But the researchers were not craftspeople themselves, and they did not have the perspective gained through years of experience working with their hands and with machinery. Having that experience myself, I have some very strong opinions regarding the level of manufacturing expertise practiced by the ancient Egyptians. They were not primitive by any means, and their craftsmanship and precision would be an extreme challenge to duplicate today.

  During my research on the Great Pyramid, and in considering the many questions raised by others, I began to form an opinion regarding the true purpose of this structure. The decision to write this book came about after careful consideration of what courses of action were available to me to share ideas I had developed regarding the pyramid and other artifacts described by Egyptologists, especially William Flinders Petrie. As a craftsman and engineer who has worked with close tolerances for more than thirty-five years, it was only natural for me to find great affinity with the people whose remarkable accuracy was evident in building this structure.

  For readers not familiar with the issues of manufacturing, let me pause briefly to provide a short historical overview. The industrial revolution, which had its genesis in England in the early 1800s, brought about standardization in the manufacture of components. Take, for instance, the rifle. At one time, each part of a rifle was manufactured and individually tailored to fit another part. There was no standardization of precision whereby interchangeable pieces could be taken off the shelf and appropriately fitted into the rifle without some adjustment. Each component was customized to fit with the other. Eli Whitney first proposed standardizing rifle components in order to facilitate supplies for war; however, in order to achieve standardization, unwelcome variations had to be worked out of the manufacturing process. In other words, it would be very unlikely that a shaft produced on a lathe that machined variations of .010 inch in diameter would precision-fit a bore with the same variations. Machines with greater precision were needed, along with a system of measurement hat was standardized and closely controlled to monitor the products produced by these machines.

  FIGURE 11. Measurement and Tolerance

  Metrology is the science of the use of measuring equipment that is closely calibrated and monitored. The equipment requires a greater degree of precision than the object that is being produced. That being the case, we are assured that the object conforms to specification. Normally a measuring instrument, or gauge, for checking the precision of a product has a tolerance of ten percent of the tolerance of the object (see Figure 11).1 Although the accuracy exhibited in the Great Pyramid was recorded over a century ago, it would be helpful to reevaluate the findings of early explorers in the light of today's technology.

  When Petrie made his critical measurements of the Great Pyramid casing stones in 1882, he was astounded by what he found: "The eastern joint of the northern casing stones is on the top .020, .002, .045 wide; and on the face .012, .022, .013, and .040 wide. The next joint is on the face .001 and .014 wide. Hence the mean thickness of the joints is .020; and, therefore, the mean variation of the cutting of the stone from a straight line and from a true square, is but .010 on length of 75 inches up the face, an amount of accuracy equal to most modern opticians' straight edges of such length."2

  FIGURE 12. Casing Stones of the Great Pyramid

  Petrie's close examination of the casing stones revealed variations so minute that they were barely discernible to the naked eye. The records show that the outer casing blocks were square and flat, with a mean variation of 1/100 inch (.010) over an area of thirty-five square feet. Fitted together, the blocks maintained a gap of 0 to 1/50 inch (.020), which might be compared with the thickness of a fingernail. Inside this gap was cement that bonded the limestone so firmly that the strength of the joint was greater than the limestone itself. The composition of this cement has been a mystery for years.

  The casing blocks were reported to weigh between sixteen and twenty tons each, with the largest blocks measuring five feet high, twelve feet long, and eight feet deep (see Figure 12).

  It was these figures that greatly influenced my preliminary assessment of the pyramid. Here was a prehistoric monument that was constructed with such precision that you could not find a comparable modern building. More remarkable to me was that the builders evidently found it necessary to maintain a standard of precision that can be found today in machine shops, but certainly not on building sites.

  These details are important, and we should consider them as we seek to determine how the ancient Egyptians quarried, dressed, and assembled those blocks. The general population of a century ago would not have fully appreciated the significance of such fine tolerances. At that time opticians were the only artisans who worked with such fine tolerances. Today, any researcher wishing to compare the skills found in the Great Pyramid with modern-day craftspeople would have a variety of skilled trades from which to choose.

  Although the exact precision demonstrated in the manufacture and assembly of the Great Pyramid may have had little significance a century ago, there are, at this time, many people who are intimately familiar with these dimensional tolerances. I am one of them, for many years creating products with tolerances much finer than .010 inch. I know what it takes to hold such fine tolerances—and there is a great difference between knowing what .010 inch is from an abstract academic viewpoint and understanding what .010 inch is from hands-on, practical experience.

  This is why I laugh when I hear intelligent men and women proposing that the pyramids and other artifacts were created using hammers and chisels. Other machinists, toolmakers, and engineers with whom I have discussed this issue are equally amused, and normally just shake their heads and mutter something straightforward and unprintable. These workers, the members of what we consider a highly advanced civilization, understand the following: It is very well to dream, speculate, and theorize, but when it comes to doing the work, we are generally brought down to earth and hard facts. The most efficient and economically minded designers and engineers are those who have experienced the manufacturing phase of their ideas and have worked on the bench and with the machines. These experiences lead them to be more realistic in their demands of skilled craftspeople.

  Through my own experience in manufacturing, I have realized that theories and ideas that seemed to work fine in my mind, or on paper, could be rendered unworkable when I actually tried to apply them. In much the same way, I have found that many theories regarding the building of the Great Pyramid are not supported with material proof, for no one, despite numerous attempts, has been able to duplicate the structure using
the methods theorized to have been in place in ancient Egypt. These methods have been applied, with limited success, in building smaller structures, but they are not attempts to replicate the more difficult aspects of the building. A pyramid that is twenty-or fifty-feet tall and built with limestone blocks that weigh no more than two tons does not explain how the ancient pyramid builders raised seventy-ton blocks of granite to a height of two hundred feet. Scaling up a project does not necessarily follow a linear path, nor does it rely solely on a fixed set of assumptions. So the researchers' fifty-foot pyramid may not necessarily provide them with all the data necessary to calculate the requirements for building the Great Pyramid.

  Again, let us look to a technology common to our own generation to present an example of using the wrong assumptions when scaling up a project. Take, for instance, the early development of industrial lasers. As physicists, electrical engineers, optical engineers, and mechanical engineers accomplished the development of high-powered industrial lasers, they made an assumption that because the laser did not apply any mechanical force to the workpiece, the machine did not have to be as sturdy as those used in conventional machining operations—such as milling or lathe turning—where tremendous mechanical forces exert pressure on the tool and the machine. Working in the laboratory with machine members (or stages) no longer than twelve inches, researchers proved this assumption correct. However, when they built a machine that was three or four times larger, they found that other forces—such as inertia—came into play, and they realized that the machine-tools that carried these lasers had to be equally as robust and as strong as conventional machines. The situation in which Egyptologists would find themselves, I believe, would be quite similar if they scaled up their demonstration pyramid to the dimensions and precision of the Great Pyramid.