×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ancient Egyptian Tech May Be Key To Printing 3D Ceramics

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the what's-old-is-new dept.

Science 138

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

138 comments

Dream big (4, Funny)

Maho Shoujo (2729697) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331191)

One day, I shall print my own pyramid!

Re:Dream big (4, Funny)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331213)

And seeing the cost in `ink' will kill you so fast that you can be buried in it too!

Re:Dream big (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331275)

<mahoshoujo@hellokitty.com>

hellokitty.com

holy fucking shit, is this nerd for real?

Re:Dream big (1)

yotto (590067) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333565)

I would guess that he works for SanRio, the company that makes Hello Kitty products.

Re:Dream big (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333667)

I would guess that he works for SanRio, the company that makes Hello Kitty products.

You say that like it's a reasonable excuse or something.

Re:Dream big (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333841)

A job is a job.
Hey he may be working on the Hello Kitty mega super computer. Or the Hello Kitty surface to air missile system.

Come on just think about it. a perfect movie death scene of the villains last words Oh now it's Hello Kitty!

Better for printing weapons? (0)

nonsequitor (893813) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331203)

Seems like this might make a better gun than a reprap.

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331375)

A ceramic gun! Brilliant! This will go down in history along with other great inventions such as poison ivy underpants, gummi hammers, and the rice paper condom!

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331531)

Ahem... Glock.
'nuff said.

Re:Better for printing weapons? (3, Informative)

Kharny (239931) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331547)

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)

Re:Better for printing weapons? (4, Informative)

zoloto (586738) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331577)

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.

Re:Better for printing weapons? (3, Informative)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332017)

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.

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333693)

Stop getting your information from Die Hard 2.

Yeah, just the "fax" ma'am!

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332005)

There was a company that claimed to have made ziconium (PSZ) gun barrels but they never sold any or made any available to a third party. Even a "tough" ceramic like PSZ that you can hit with a hammer is unlikely to be tough enough to be relied on for a barrel.

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

Anarki2004 (1652007) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331535)

It only needs to work one time...

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332025)

By work, you mean explode sending what is effectively self sharpening armor piercing fragments in all directions?
Then sure, ceramic barrels work.

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332721)

Pure ceramic, maybe not. Fibre-wrapped ceramic, maybe - if it maintains integrity sufficiently long for the bullet to leave in a straight line, and a tightly woven fabric catches the splinters trying to leave in a non-frontal direction, as a one-off device it could work.

Sadly it's against the law for me to experiment and find out in this country :(

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

doublebackslash (702979) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333161)

Which country would that be?

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

Cederic (9623) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333203)

The UK. I guess I could establish a business, acquire the appropriate permits, fill in the healthy & safety forms and pass the security clearances.

But the barriers to entry are just too high for someone as lazy as me, and having a bash in my back garden is indeed illegal.

Re:Better for printing weapons? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333719)

The UK. I guess I could establish a business, acquire the appropriate permits, fill in the healthy & safety forms and pass the security clearances.

But the barriers to entry are just too high for someone as lazy as me, and having a bash in my back garden is indeed illegal.

In related news, the evil socialist tyranny in the UK forbids people from experimenting with atomic weapons in their garden sheds too.

Re:Better for printing weapons? (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332265)

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.

Technology (3, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331209)

"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?
 

Re:Technology (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331245)

Don't give Apple any ideas. They may see that a wheel is a completely rounded corner!

Re:Technology (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331263)

Don't give Apple any ideas. They may see that a wheel is a completely rounded corner!

Aaaaahhhhhh.... but we got plenty of prior arts, don't we? :)

Re:Technology (4, Insightful)

redneckmother (1664119) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331355)

Don't give Apple any ideas. They may see that a wheel is a completely rounded corner!

Aaaaahhhhhh.... but we got plenty of prior arts, don't we? :)

Hasn't stopped them so far, has it? :)

Re:Technology (4, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331269)

A compass only points to the magnetic north and south. The geographic north and south that we all actually use on our maps and GPSes is based on the rotation of the earth, and could be determined simply by observing sunup/sundown times internationally (and realizing the earth is round).

Compasses? We don't need no stinkin' compasses.

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331313)

Except maps usually mark magnetic north since it is useful. Magnetic north would only be an issue in the far north and very large maps. You have just never used real maps?

Re:Technology (2)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331425)

Except maps usually mark magnetic north since it is useful. Magnetic north would only be an issue in the far north and very large maps. You have just never used real maps?

Really? The maps I've seen with magnetic north generally also show true north and give the magnetic declination. If only one "north" is shown I believe it is true north, at least for modern maps.

What does the size of the map have to do with anything? If my current declination is 15deg it is 15deg regardless of whether I am looking at a small map or a large map.

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332885)

Why would a map (made of paper) even show magnetic north?
It shifts over time, so the map will be out of data as soon as you print it.

Re:Technology (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332975)

Pretty much every map I've ever used has axial North up. Only time magnetic North comes into play is on global maps, where it's marked somewhere in the Canadian wilderness.

Re:Technology (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333163)

Magnetic north would only be an issue in the far north and very large maps.
 

  I don't see how being far north would make this any more or less of an issue, except for those specifically looking to reach the pole. The difference between magnetic north and true north is significantly different from Florida to Texas, both of which are near the tropics and not far north at all.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_declination [wikipedia.org]

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331499)

Compasses? We don't need no stinkin' compasses.

Compii

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331511)

Compi even

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331465)

You missed fire. THE most important ancient inventions.

Re:Technology (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331875)

It's not that ancient. In fact it's coming out today [amazon.com] .

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331581)

> I guess the adage "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"

"Those who forget the past are doomed to patent it". There, FTFY.

> And I guess re-inventing the wheel isn't exactly a very expedient act, or is it?

  Actually it slows down mankind, so most of us lose -- but it's so lucrative for a few ones... :-(

Re:Technology (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331699)

> > I guess the adage "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it"

"Those who forget the past are doomed to patent it". There, FTFY.

And I can only thank God that nobody ever thought of filing a patent on "Fire"
 

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332171)

> And I guess re-inventing the wheel isn't exactly a very expedient act, or is it?

  Actually it slows down mankind, so most of us lose -- but it's so lucrative for a few ones... :-(

Anyone who talks about re-inventing the wheel as something bad should immediately replace his modern re-invented car wheels with wooden ones.

Without reinventing the wheel we would be stuck with primitive bad solutions for everything.

Re:Technology (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332471)

Anyone who talks about re-inventing the wheel as something bad should immediately replace his modern re-invented car wheels with wooden ones.

Just in case you do not have a dictionary, here's the definition of "Invent" --

"Create or design (something that has not existed before); be the originator of."

Replacing wood as the material in making wheels with metal (or ceramics, or polymer) is not counted as 'invention'

It's "enhancement", not "invention"

Better luck trolling next time, buckwheat !

Re:Technology (2)

stox (131684) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331693)

Use of pole stars, eg. North Star, predated the use of the compass to determine north and south. We comprehended them quite well without the use of a compass.

Re:Technology (4, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331725)

Um... We knew North and South long before the compass. Egyptians aligned the pyramids with North about a thousand years before the invention of the compass. Mariners navigated by the stars for generations before the compass became a commonplace navigational tool. As a matter of fact, the north pointer of a compass is called that because it points to the north pole of the Earth. Even today, when I want to know which way is North, I look at where the Sun is in the sky (or I look for the Big Dipper at night).

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332821)

Indeed. Old mariners didn't even rely on compasses, because at some places they were disturbed by strong magnetic fields. It was common belief at the time that those disturbances were caused by sea demons. Instead they relied on the stars.

Re:Technology (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331747)

Compasses are very new. We still use a lot of technology from the stone age. Fire, thread, clothes, paint... The list goes on and on.

Re:Technology (1)

dinfinity (2300094) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333363)

The things you mention don't really classify as technology.

Generally, technology means (a set of) tools and ways to use them. If we're going to call fire a technology, we might as well call rusting a technology. More accurate would be 'Using campfires to cook' or 'Using a spinning wheel to convert cotton into thread', both of which aren't used professionally on a meaningful scale in the western world.

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331973)

"Without compass, an ancient invention, we won't even comprehend the North from the South"

Ever notice how moss grows on one side of a tree but not the other? I don need a compass.

Re:Technology (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41334069)

"Without compass, an ancient invention, we won't even comprehend the North from the South"

Ever notice how moss grows on one side of a tree but not the other? I don need a compass.

Yeah, that's a really good way of navigating when you're on top of a bare mountain or in the middle of an ocean.

Re:Technology (1)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332605)

Anyway, there is a load of people out there who don't like the future, neither their present, they are looking at the good ol' time. Only nerds like the future.

Re:Technology (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41334087)

Anyway, there is a load of people out there who don't like the future, neither their present, they are looking at the good ol' time. Only nerds like the future.

The future will only be better if everyone tries to make it so. If you just assume that the future will magically be good, it won't.

Re:Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332797)

"North from the South" - That's easy down south they all speak slower and keep slaves!

Re:Technology (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41334105)

In the UK, dahn Sahf they have flat beer, and Oop t'North they have a two inch head on their drinks. Also, they apparently keep whippets.

But... (0)

Stele (9443) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331233)

Isn't the world only 6000 years old?

Did the Egyptians (if that IS their real name) have time travel technology? In Stargate, they had cool helmets, but no time travel.

Re:But... (2)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331281)

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!

Re:But... (2, Interesting)

Stele (9443) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331315)

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.

Re:But... (2)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331473)

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. :-)

Stop it already! (5, Insightful)

qbitslayer (2567421) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331599)

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.

Re:Stop it already! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332147)

Criticism is one thing - outright denial is something else entirely...

Science isn't politics (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332215)

So what you're saying is that we need to meet the religious nuts HALF way? Deny HALF the science??? To gain some sort of inner compromise?

Or are you saying that science should be limited to criticizing only science?

He made a point which is salient. Some of these nutter states are teaching things FLATLY CONTRADICTED by science. No amount of inner soul searching for science will make that anything other than a bad thing. The correct solution is to point out again and again that that religious truth they're teaching is no different from the religious lies the Taliban teach, it is not real and can is provably incorrect at every level.

Pretending something wrong is half right for an easy life isn't what science is about. Sometimes you just gotta tell it like it is. God didn't make us in his image.

Re:Stop it already! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332259)

how is your reply related to what you replied to ? where's a strawman in there ?
or is it "ooooh, we religious nutcases are offended, oooooh" ?

Re:Stop it already! (0)

silentcoder (1241496) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332515)

Science didn't start the war. Science just won every battle, but it's religion that declared the war.

Re:But... (4, Insightful)

dido (9125) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332271)

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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:But... (2)

starless (60879) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333833)

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.

Re:But... (3, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331433)

In Stargate, they had cool helmets, but no time travel.

I think you missed an episode or two of the TV series. :-)

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331539)

Or seven..

Re:But... (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331601)

In Stargate, they had cool helmets, but no time travel.

I think you missed an episode or two of the TV series. :-)

Oh, you mean that episode which centered on a warning note written on a little piece of paper ?

Re:But... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332915)

At least three episodes and one movie from SG-1: 2001, 2010 and 1969, and the movie Continuum. From Atlantis there's the one where Shepard is thrown 50,000 years into the future and Atlantis is abandoned, the sun is expanding and his only companion is a hologram of the Most Annoying Guy In The Universe. From Universe there's a story arc near the end of S2 where Destiny meets the descendants of her crew.

I am a geek.

Re:But... (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332937)

the helmets looked cool but they're not very comfortable unless you get yourself a Jarhead cut (or a Milan Mohawk). IIRC the only character to wear a Jar was Kowalski.

(source: I have one I wear when on my motorcycle, it's an Orlite M83)

Re:But... (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332835)

"Isn't the world only 6000 years old?"

Don't know about the earth, but the hippo from Metropolitan Museum of Art in the article is definitely not that old.
It's from Dynasty 12, 1961-1885 BCE.

ancient (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331301)

History has a hobbit named Repeat, and You are not as cute as you think you are. My pot isn't printable. (damn shame)

Patents? (0)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331323)

So... who's going to patent this ~7,000-year-old technology? And better yet, what mummy's foot will be stepped on when it happens? Will the mummy come back to life and start going on a suing rampage like Apple?

Re:Patents? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331487)

So... who's going to patent this ~7,000-year-old technology?

I'd expect that the original patents issued by the Royal Egyptian Patent and Trademark Office have expired. So its public domain?

http://bambuser.com/v/2977072 cairo live fire war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331345)

wwfree sounds like it kids being shot at running all whack excessively armed civil servants

Doesn't surprise me, we went to the moon likewise (3, Insightful)

ezakimak (160186) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331431)

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.

Re:Doesn't surprise me, we went to the moon likewi (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331683)

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.

Re:Doesn't surprise me, we went to the moon likewi (2)

ezakimak (160186) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331765)

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.

Re:Doesn't surprise me, we went to the moon likewi (1)

kermidge (2221646) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332325)

"We can capture the knowledge--but it's the skills I think we most risk losing."

Even the 'simple' stuff. Watch a brick/block layer trim pieces to fit. Looks easy, and it is - until you try it for yourself. Had some related experience with this doing pattern-cut flagstone, working through caprock (nowadays, all bed is done with saws; cap is simply drilled and blasted off.)

The video for the story is worth watching, btw.

Re:Doesn't surprise me, we went to the moon likewi (2)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about a year and a half ago | (#41332735)

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.

Re:Doesn't surprise me, we went to the moon likewi (1)

TCPhotography (1245814) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331877)

That's also what they did with the F-1 Engine (the Saturn V first stage engine) production line. It's why rebuilding the line is a valid option for the next heavy lifter.

Don't underestimate the Egyptians (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331563)

Don't underestimate the Egyptians. I saw a documentary with Kurt Russell when I was small, the pyramids are the tips dug down space rockets.

Not enough credit (2)

Kylon99 (2430624) | about a year and a half ago | (#41331721)

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...

Shanghai shunky (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331963)

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.sandmaker.biz
http://www.shunkycrusher.com
http://www.jaw-breaker.org
http://www.jawcrusher.hk
http://www.c-crusher.net
http://www.sandmakingplant.net
http://www.vibrating-screen.biz
http://www.mcrushingstation.com
http://www.cnstonecrusher.com
http://www.cnimpactcrusher.com
http://www.Vibrating-screen.cn
http://www.stoneproductionline.com
http://www.hydraulicconecrusher.net
http://www.mcrushingplant.com
http://www.crusher007.com
http://www.sand-making-machine.com
http://www.china-impact-crusher.com
http://www.cnshunky.com
http://www.bestssj.com
http://www.shunkyen.com
http://www.crusheren.com
http://www.crusher02.com
http://www.portablecrusherplant.net
http://www.csconecrusher.com

very nice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41331989)

my friend's ex-wife brought in $15406 past week. she is working on the laptop and got a $578100 home. All she did was get lucky and follow the tips leaked on this web page http://doiop.com/s09ci0

Re:very nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332877)

I followed that link and Russians stole my identity.

If you want a new idea (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41332089)

Like the Captain of the submarine I was on often said, "If you want a new idea, read an old book."

Ignorant != Stupid (2)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#41333047)

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?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...