Slashdot Mirror
Ancient Egyptian Tech May Be Key To Printing 3D Ceramics
Zothecula writes "We like to think of technology as always being forward looking. It's supposed to be about nanoparticles and the Cloud, not steam engines and the telephone exchange. But every now and again the past reaches out, taps the 21st century on the shoulder and says, 'Have a look at this.' That's what happened to Professor Stephen Hoskins, Director of the University of West England, Bristol's Centre for Fine Print Research. He is currently working on a way of printing 3D ceramics that are self-glazing, thanks to a 7,000-year old technology from ancient Egypt."
One day, I shall print my own pyramid!
"We like to think of technology as always being forward looking. It's supposed to be about nanoparticles and the Cloud, not steam engines and the telephone exchange."
Those who think technology only means looking into the future should think again
For example:
Without compass, an ancient invention, we won't even comprehend the North from the South
There are so many things that we are enjoying now rely on old tech, some of the tech dates back thousands of years.
I guess the adage "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"
And I guess re-inventing the wheel isn't exactly a very expedient act, or is it?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
All the artifacts and fossils were placed underground by God for us to find. Previously, we had thought it was a test of faith. But now we know he was trying to provide us with nifty 3D printing tech!
I grew up in south-west Virginia in the 80s, and I knew people in High School that said that dinosaur fossils, and other galaxies for that matter, were created by God as things for us to "discover".
It was very hard growing up as one of the few sane people in school.
NASA had to resurrect fabrication techniques from the days of the gold rush gold mines to build some of their parts large enough for the rockets that went to the moon.
It seems that there's a lot of knowledge and skills that are getting lost as we "progress". Sure, some of it is useless since we truly have replaced things with better stuff, eg linotype. But then again, there are some technologies and skills that are dying off that would be good to capture somehow, such as how to build and work a foundary. I'm not sure of a good way to capture *skill*--it's usually passed on person-to-person.
In Stargate, they had cool helmets, but no time travel.
I think you missed an episode or two of the TV series. :-)
we'll get to print alien technology
I grew up in south-west Virginia in the 80s, and I knew people in High School that said that dinosaur fossils, and other galaxies for that matter, were created by God as things for us to "discover".
Well given an omniscient God he would know how to create a comprehensive mathematical model of a universe and be able to instantiate that universe at time t = 13 billion years into that model. :-)
I know I am missing getting new stargate episodes. Even another direct to DVD movie would be nice.
Glocks have a ceramic frame, but are not entirely ceramic.
There are no guns that have barrels of anything but metal(mostly highgrade carbon steel)
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
You guys have no idea what you're talking about. There has never been or ever will be a Glock made out of ceramic materials. Ceramics don't have the necessary strength to maintain integrity for even a single shot of a round. They have a polymer frame and a steel slide and barrel. Stop getting your information from Die Hard 2. It makes you look pathetic to regurgitate the same ignorant shit people have spouted for the last two decades.
This strawman is really getting old. You guys should wake up from your self-righteousness every once in a while and realize that science is not served by criticizing non-scientists. Science moves forward through self-criticism. Unfortunately, since you decided to turn science into an 'us versus them' pissing contest, any criticism of science is wrongfully and automatically seen as coming from 'them' and truths run the risk of being rejected just because they look like they might have come from the other side. This is both lame and dangerous because it creates the same sort of untouchable and destructive elitism and blind despotism that organized religion is known for throughout history.
I'm not sure of a good way to capture *skill*--it's usually passed on person-to-person.
It's called "good documentation".
I recall reading that the F-22 production line was videotaped from start to finish, with workers explaining their jobs and going through the motions.
This was fleshed out with interviews in order to capture institutional knowledge that usually disappears when production lines are shut down and workers leave.
Ceramics enjoyed an extended period as a top tier technology and then continued on as a legacy, but still critical-for-civilization technology.
Once we reinvent their old technology, there's no reason for it to ever be lost again.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Civ 2 : England discovers Pottery?
I honestly think we underestimate our ancestors sometimes who should've been just as smart and tenacious as we are. They maybe appear primitive simply because we have the benefit of a long history of discoveries to build on. And where their technology branched off in ways we don't care about, there could be even more secrets to be had...
It's called "good documentation".
I recall reading that the F-22 production line was videotaped from start to finish, with workers explaining their jobs and going through the motions.
This was fleshed out with interviews in order to capture institutional knowledge that usually disappears when production lines are shut down and workers leave.
Ceramics enjoyed an extended period as a top tier technology and then continued on as a legacy, but still critical-for-civilization technology.
Once we reinvent their old technology, there's no reason for it to ever be lost again.
Sure, that can go a long ways, but I still think there's room for stuff to get lost in translation. "tricks of the trade" that really need to be shown/taught/critiqued in person. It's *really* hard for most humans to learn fine motor skills out of a book or video--having personal instruction for feedback/correction is paramount. There's a reason some skills were historically learned via apprenticeship for years before reaching "journeyman" status--there really can be a lot to it, and you can't easily capture it let alone reproduce it just from documentation.
There's lots of stories of cases where someone needs to use some older technology and despite understanding it (they have the knowledge) they still have to hunt down an old-timer to show them how to use it (skill).
We can capture the knowledge--but it's the skills I think we most risk losing.
They've got the strength, but that's not the problem, it's toughness - the ability to absorb the energy of a shot instead of shattering like glass.
Like the Captain of the submarine I was on often said, "If you want a new idea, read an old book."
Faience isn't really a ceramic anyway. It's silica fused with salts, more like a high-temperature cement or concrete.
It's never really been lost either, plenty of hobbyists still play with it, and you can buy it from art suppliers. It's not an ideal structural material, and is hard to work, but printing with it may reduce those limitations.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
And what of it? Nothing of what your people in high school has said in any way contradicts true science. I at first thought that you were talking about the Omphalos hypothesis which is a load of bullshit (but it is what the original posters were referring to), but reading what you wrote more carefully says that it's not what you are talking about at all. Your said that your high school people believed that the natural world as a whole was created by God as something for us to discover. Think of what that really means for a second. If you read it carefully, it actually says that the honest practice of science is nothing more or less than God's will for us! For what is science but an attempt to to discover and understand the workings of the natural world? Contrary to what many people around here seem to think, there is nothing inherently anti-science about religion and the belief in God in general. It is non-scientific to be sure, a belief in God and in science can be held without a whit of cognitive dissonance. Science is there to tell us the how of the world, religion is there to tell us the why. Granted, there are many religions out there that fail to grasp this essential fact and so rail about with creationism and all that because they wrongly believe that their religion is the only possible repository of all truth. The questions religion is supposed to answer are fundamentally meaningless for science, and vice-versa.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
sure it's good to capture that kind of stuff when possible but don't worry too much. almost nothing is ever lost forever. If master craftsmen 1000 years ago could figure it out then master craftsmen today can figure it out again.
there's a lot of mythology around many such things. having a few pints with an old master blacksmith can be interesting. there's a number of master blacksmiths who spent years figuring out how to make blades which were almost indistinguishable from wootz but the point to keep in mind is that the challenge was to figure out how they did it with tech of old. not how to make superior metal.
The best blades ever produced in ancient times wouldn't hold a candle to the best that could be made now by the best engineers now.
If you made a blade using single crystal superalloys like they use in jet engine turbine blades it would make a mockery of the best of the best in ancient times
Even if we lose the skills there's lots of bright people who'll either figure it out or figure out a better solution.
I find lately that commentators are more often referring to people from earlier eras as if they were stupid, when my interpretation is that they had an equal if not greater capacity for brilliance.
"...Also known as Egyptian paste, faience is one of those remarkable crossroads materials that occur now and again in the history of technology. It was invented 7,000 years ago in Egypt, when the Egyptians were still trying to get the hang of pottery and smelting metal. It isnâ(TM)t actually a ceramic, but rather a paste made of quartz or sand, calcite lime and a mixture of alkalis. Because of this, it can be applied directly to wet clay. When the pottery is fired, the paste turns into a brilliant blue-green glaze reminiscent of lapis lazuli, which the Egyptians used faience as a substitute for...."
Atrocious writing aside, this would be an excellent example - how much determined experimentation would it take YOU to develop something like this...at the available tech from 5000 BC? You don't have calculus, you don't even have a basic understanding of chemistry, microscopes, hell, even an accurate thermometer?
-Styopa
The problem is that at least the vast majority of religions come with "standard" texts that contain explanations for where, for example, humans and the Earth came from ("creation myths"). When science discovers information that conflicts the these texts, the texts are not typically discarded or revised, as would be the case in science. This sets up an automatic potential conflict between science and any religion that claims to provide real information about the physical world. (Except if a case was found where the "standard texts" of a religion actually were actually confirmed from genuine scientific research.)
A "religion" might exist without physical world predictions, but then it would probably be much more of just an ethical movement (e.g. such as vegetarianism) than a real religion. Possibly Unitarian-Universalism and some types of Buddhism could be such "light" forms of religion.
Science is there to tell us the how of the world, religion is there to tell us the why.
Philosophy is there to tell us the why. Religion is just a small subset of philosophy. You do not need to bring in deities to explain anything, they are entirely superfluous.
You may choose to believe in them if you like, but you do so on a less logical or testable basis than that of my six year old believing in the Tooth Fairy. At least she does actually get her shiny coin when she leaves a tooth under her pillow, even I can see that.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Who the fuck buys a home for such a precise figure as $578100?
I smell a rat!
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it