The Giza Power Plant : Technologies of Ancient Egypt

Dunn offers an incorrect description of
the rock-concrete (geopolymer) theory, which theory obviates his. Why?

Developing his theory, Dunn consulted various individuals, but no
geopolymer spokesperson, despite admitting that geopolymerization
challenged him. Why?

Dunn does not refute the chemical analyses of
pyramid stone he cites. Instead, he irrelevantly points to sarcophagi
made over 1000 years after the Great Pyramid was built, when the
stone-making technology was in decline.

Dunn assumes that
geopolymers, if used at all, were only poured into molds. Wrong!
Unhardened rock-concrete can be worked like clay on a potter's
wheel. Objects can be created by packing together individual
quantities of uncured rock-concrete, skillfully shaped and finished
with simple tools before ultimate hardening. A finish can be applied
with one or more rock-concrete coatings. These techniques are used
separately or in combination to construct an object. This flexible
system eliminated quarrying, shaping, lifting and setting natural rock
blocks and explains the heretofore unresolved features of the Great
Pyramid and associated monuments and artifacts. Why didn't Dunn
discuss this?

Revealing a rock-concrete object's construction method
may require a subsurface examination. Distinguishing between natural
rock and geopolymeric rock-concrete will normally require chemical
analysis and microscopy, the geopolymer cement requiring a scanning
electron microscope. Dunn ignores these facts.

Modern quarries
exhibit cuts made by power saws. If the pyramid blocks were machined,
the pyramid era quarries should exhibit similar marks. But they bear
only the crude marks of stone picks (Arnold, D., "Building In
Egypt"), a fact consistent with a disaggregation process for
geopolymerization. Dunn ignores this, too.

The Great Pyramid's
limestone blocks are geopolymeric rock-concrete made at ambient
temperatures with the Giza quarry's high-clay-content limestone,
initially disaggregated because its clay was released by water that
flooded the quarries. It's been demonstrated! Granite was otherwise
disaggregated.

Rejecting the pyramids as funerary monuments, Dunn
asks why robbers would steal "corpses" (mummies), failing to
acknowledge that royal mummy wrappings have contained numerous
precious amulets.

Egyptologists understand that the Great Pyramid,
containing a sarcophagus and surrounded by royal tombs in the
Necropolis ("City of the Dead"), represents the mythological
primeval mountain. This fundamental religious concept, which Egypt
shared with other nations, survived in architecture (pyramids,
ziggurats, and temples) for several thousand years. Dunn ignores this
concept. To disprove that the Great Pyramid is a primeval mountain
funerary monument, Dunn must convincingly disprove the Great Pyramid's
relationship to this concept. He does not.

Dunn speculates that a
cataclysm caused machine tools to vanish. But what cataclysm lasted
over 6000 years, during which time artifacts of the type Dunn claims
were machined, were fashioned? Diorite vessels date to Neolithic times
(c. 7000 B.C.). Diorite continued to be fashioned until at least the
25th Dynasty (712-657 B.C.). This spans over 6000 years. The 18th
(1550-1307 B.C.) and 19th (1307-1196 B.C.) Dynasties produced truly
impressive monolithic colossi of granite or quartzite weighing up to
over 1000-tons each. How could machine tools and all associated high
technology, used for over 6000 years, disappear while primitive tools
and low technology objects survived?

Dunn asserts that an iron scrap
found inside the Great Pyramid proves contemporaneous iron
production. Egyptologists don't agree, citing extensive 19th Dynasty
pyramid repairs and the absence of convincing evidence of iron
smelting. No sealed Old Kingdom (2575-2134 B.C.) tomb has yielded
wrought iron. Evidence for even one smelting facility dated to the Old
or Middle Kingdom is lacking. If original, said iron could be a
foreign gift placed in the masonry, like amulets inserted into mummy
wrappings.

For his power plant to work, Dunn claims iron and gold
lined the entire lengths of the narrow northern and southern shafts of
the King's Chamber. Dunn presents no evidence for such a lining, save
for the implication of the above-mentioned unconvincing iron
scrap. However, he partially inspected the northern shaft and mentions
no sign of metal or its removal.

Dunn does not explain how energy
was transferred to power tools. He incongruously mixes low and high
technology, claiming that a wood and bronze "grapnel hook"
is part of a critical fluid control switch--as if its curved edge is a
proper contact surface. Dunn offers no proof that it floats or its
weight distribution allows the required horizontal flotation. It is
unbelievable that Dunn's advanced technology coexisted with such
"gerry-rigging." Bronze appeared in Egypt hundreds of years
after the Great Pyramid's construction. This hook, resembling nothing
known from the Pyramid Age, is probably nothing but a "grapnel
hook" placed in the Great Pyramid long after its
construction.

Dunn asserts that a crack in the Queen's Chamber
metered fluids! A crack is subject to erosion, and dimensional
instability caused by settlement, earthquakes and etc. Why would
engineers using ultrasound, high-speed motorized machinery and more
impressive technology substitute "Flintstones" technology
for a drilled orifice or truly sophisticated metering
device?

Features Dunn claims support a power plant actually support
geopolymerization best. For instance, Dunn says that the power plant's
chemicals created salt on certain limestone walls because of a
reaction with the limestone. But geopolymerized stone can release such
salt.... Salt appears on walls of other pyramids. For instance, Petrie
reported "a good deal of crystallized salt" inside Khafra's
granite (not limestone!) sarcophagus. Dunn ignores these facts that
oppose his theory. This phenomena evidences geopolymerization, not
Gizapower!

If the strange description of the granite matrix in the
King's Chamber (page 152) that Dunn presents is accurate, it suggests
artificial stone, as do Dunn's remarks about Petrie's granite core # 7
from Khafra's Valley Temple, "The confounding fact that the
spiral groove cut deeper through the quartz than through the softer
feldspar. In conventional machining the reverse would be the
case."

Dunn legitimately asserts that certain features cannot
be explained by utilizing ancient Egyptian tools. His evidence
inadvertently helps prove that geopolymerization is the answer to
otherwise puzzling monuments and artifacts.







A MASSIVE GENERATOR?   September 6, 2003
Pieter (Johannesburg)
52 out of 59 found this review helpful

The author makes a good case for having solved the riddle of the purpose of the Great Pyramid. He claims the pyramid was a large acoustical device in which the technology of harmonic resonance was used to convert the earth's vibrational energies to microwave radiation. He demonstrates the fact that the chambers and passages in the pyramid were positioned with deliberate precision to optimise its acoustical properties. When the pyramid was vibrating in tune with the earth's pulse it became a coupled oscillator that could carry the transfer of power from the earth with little or no feedback, while the three smaller pyramids on the Giza plateau could have been used to help the Great Pyramid achieve the required resonance. The King's Chamber, built of igneous granite containing silicon quartz crystals, served as the power centre while the Queen's Chamber was used to generate hydrogen, the fuel that ran the plant. Certain artefacts reveal that the ancient Egyptians used advanced machining methods. The latest discoveries, including the door found in an airshaft by Gantenbrink's Upuaut robot, fits well into this power plant theory and the author also refers to the work of Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock. The text is illustrated with black and white drawings and photographs and it concludes with copious notes, a bibliography and an index. The book is well researched, well written and in my opinion the theory is plausible and ought to be investigated further.


A great read and makes sense scientifically   July 6, 2000
G Sharp (USA)
37 out of 45 found this review helpful

The Great Pyramid was a microwave power generator using earth's natural harmonic vibrations, according to the author. Because it sounded like such a far-out theory, I assumed it was going to be really 'new age fringy' and almost didn't even look through it. But to my surprise it was a great read and made sense scientifically. Also it fit into the Zachariah Sitchin theory about the Anunnaki of ancient Sumeria. Although I don't think he even mentions Sitchin. (However, Sitchin thinks the two large pyramids at Giza were mainly for landing 'beacons.') While he does mention Cayce, to the detriment of the book I felt. He does try to answer ALL the reasons for the structure and material and shapes, etc. as far as I could tell and I have read quite a bit about the Giza pyramids. Dunn has a background in precision machining and seems to know what he is talking about. If you have a science background you can really appreciate his theory. He also used numerous diagrams to illustrate his ideas which is what really attracted me to the book. I can't say Dunn's theory is true of course, but it is an interesting idea and another aspect to consider. I'd love to see an HONEST criticism of this theory from a qualified scientist. Not just the usual arrogant debunker that leaves out the facts that don't fit and twists others to make them fit. Dunn doesn't do this with his investigation.


Finally, Some Answers to the Puzzle of Giza   August 18, 2003
Theresa Welsh (Ferndale, Michigan, USA)
32 out of 36 found this review helpful

Chris Dunn has given us a powerful new vision of the Great Pyramid at Giza, by using his technical expertise to "reverse engineer" the pyramid. What he finds is a magnificent machine that produced power using the earth itself as the source and incorporating the science of vibration and sound. Dunn works backwards from the artifacts produced by the ancient Egyptians, showing that only sophisticated machine tools could have produced the hollowed out diorite bowls and other works created by this civilization.

He fashions his theory on the evidence found inside the Great Pyramid, explaining the purpose of all the passages and "rooms" inside. He draws on some of the observations of researchers who went before him, who have noted the unusual acoustic characteristics inside the pyramid. He uses the detailed notes left to us by W. Flinders Petrie more than a century ago. Petrie made extensive measurements and examinations of the pyramid long before the "tomb" theory became gospel. Dunn points out that not a single original burial has been found in any Egyptian pyramid! There is actually no credible evidence that pyramids were built to be tombs.

Another compelling argument against the tomb idea is the tremendous amount of resources that went into building the Great Pyramid. Would a civilization devote such resources to something that returned nothing? Dunn argues that a power plant would provide a large return, potentially of benefit to the whole society, and with the incredible precision and durability of the pyramid, it would provide power for a long, long time. At least, until a disaster struck... Dunn sees evidence that a destructive force did strike the King's Chamber, pushing the walls back. Was it an accident inside the power plant?

I found especially compelling Dunn's discussion of the supposed fact that the Egyptians did not use the wheel. Perhaps they did not need it for the uses we employed it for, because they had hovercraft (much better suited to going over sand), for instance. We must also remember that the Nile River was the primary "road" in their country. Dunn says that Germany under the Nazis developed technology along different lines from the US after only 12 years of isolation. It would hardly be strange if the Egyptian civilization, separated from us by thousands of years, might have developed along different technological lines from us.

I was also excited to see Dunn discuss the Choral Castle in Florida, produced by Ed Leedskalnin back in the 1950s. Somehow, one small frail man was able to move huge blocks of rock by himself. Leedskalnin claimed to have discovered how the Egyptians moved the huge blocks that made up the pyramids but he died without revealing the secret. Dunn theorizes that it involves magnetism and would mean discarding some of the current scientific beliefs about gravity.

Dunn treads gingerly around the Edgar Cayce material, almost apologizing for including it, but I am glad he did. Many of us who seek the truth about our own past find Cayce's words compelling, with their great internal consistency. What Cayce said about the Atlanteans destroying themselves through the misuse of a powerful energy source fits with Dunn's findings about the ancients knowing how to produce electrical power. Maybe they had a more efficient and potentially destructive power than even our own civilization has discovered.

One criticism of Dunn's ideas is that there is little representation in Egyptian art of the uses of this power. There is the famous "light bulb" picture in the Temple of Dendera which seems to show Crookes tubes in use, complete with power cables. There are also in other places depictions of what could be flying machines, so the evidence of advanced technology is not completely absent in Egyptian art, but there are also pictures of people plowing fields using animals and other seemingly primitive ways of working. But as Dunn rightly points out, different societies would use a power source for different purposes. Because they didn't have toaster ovens and cars doesn't prove they had no source of electrical power. Uses of electricity would depend on the economic system of Egyptian society. Was there a profit motive to produce consumer products that use electrical power, as in our society? Who owned the power created in the pyramid and how was electrical power distributed? Dunn has no answer to these questions, although he offers speculations.

Another weakness in Dunn's presentation is that he doesn't deal with specific timeframes for the development of Egyptian technology. The Egyptian civilization lasted for thousands of years which Egyptologists divide into three periods. Dunn vaguely refers to the pyramid builders as "ancient Egyptians" but does not discuss any specific years or relate the accomplishment to any other known historical event. He does not attempt to show how the technology fits into a culture. But of course, Dunn is not claiming to be a historian or archeologist. It would be good if the people who care about this could each bring their expertise to bear on solving the enigmas inherent in the Great Pyramid. Chris Dunn certainly has some of the expertise needed... but not all.

Dunn discusses the inventions of Nikola Tesla who believed electrical power could be delivered without wires, which may be how the Egyptians delivered it. Dunn says wireless power was never pursued because there was not an easy way to meter it -- how would those who controlled it make money? Was the profit motive part of Egyptian society, or would power have been made freely available, or would it only be for use of the ruling class? The need for a return on investment is a primary driver of technology in our present society (and may keep many potentially useful and even life-saving technologies from ever being developed), but what drove technological development in ancient civilizations? We just don't know.

Dunn does not discuss the purpose of the other two pyramids or the other buildings on the Giza plateau. His theory is not complete without discovering the history and purpose of everything built around the Great Pyramid. Could its use as a power plant involve even more ancient Atlantean technology that was later incorporated with other more ceremonial uses? When was knowledge of its true purpose lost?

I hope Chris Dunn will continue his inquiries and that other researchers will carefully consider what he has presented in this wonderful book. Thanks, Chris! You've given us a lot to think about!


One of the best books on the Great Pyramid published   November 20, 2000
John DeSalvo, Ph.D. (Minnesota)
30 out of 34 found this review helpful

As Director of the Great Pyramid of Giza Research Association, I am
familiar with most of the major theories regarding the Great Pyramid.
Since my background is in physics and biophysics, I have always
favored a scientific explanation with facts that can be
substantiated. Mr. Dunn's new book is a very scientific approach to
discovering the purpose of the Great Pyramid of Giza. His theory is
based on sound scientific principles which include acoustics,
vibrations, piezoelectric effect, and others. He has synthesized a
scientific theory that is consistent with the history of ancient
Egypt. Of all the new theories published to date, I find his theory
to be one of the most promising. Further work needs to be done but
Mr. Dunn has set the stage for a new approach to the Great
Pyramid.

Also the first part of his book is a real encyclopedia of
the history and discoveries of the Great Pyramid. This book is a must
for any serious student of the Great Pyramid and also for any layman
interested in it. It makes fascinating and enjoyable reading.

If I
was going to recommend three books to someone regarding the Great
Pyramid, Mr. Dunn's book would be one of the three that I would
choose.