Scroll Length?

[Uncertain]

To test your claim, try this experiment: take 5 sheets of printer paper and as a stack roll them lengthwise into a spiral with a diameter of 3.3cm. Then, take a stack of 7 other sheets and see if you can easily fit the corner of the second stack between each of the windings of the first stack. If you can't, then perhaps you can begin to understand the problem that we are having with Cook/Smith calculations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well someone is misunderstanding the Cook/Smith approach it could very well be me. It is my understanding the effective thickness is calculated on the basis of winding lengths which in turn were obtained by looking at damage done to a rolled up scroll. This means the effective thickness is not the thickness between windings of freshly rolled up sheets of paper or papyri but papyri that has sat around for thousands of years. Or to be more accurate the effective thickness at the time the papyri was damaged. So no I would not expect much space between windings in freshly rolled up paper or papyri. But papyri which has sat around for a thousand years or so and has lost it's elastic tension I would not be surprised to see gaps between windings. In fact this is indeed what you see in all examples of rolled up papyri shown in this thread there are some windings with gaps between them. The greenfield papyrus in particular appears to have many windings with gaps between them. Would these gaps exist when the greenfield papyrus was first rolled I don't know I doubt it. But this is entirely besides the point and the reason why I don't find your experiment to be relevant.

Best,

Uncertain

[Mortal Man]

In regards to what I mentioned earlier about papyrus possibly consisting of individual sheets that were glued or sewn together to form a long scroll, I meant to ask you and Will or anyone else who may know, whether the JS papyri were constructed in that way?

No

[Uncertain]

See my response to MM above. If any critical emails need to be sent, it would be to MM for understandably jumping to a false conclusion. Rib, rib.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps Mortal Man is wrong. It would be nice to get some further clarity on the matter. Since clearly 1.5 cm is not a good estimate of the actually thickness.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Uncertain

[Uncertain]

That is part of the problem of working with or from photos. Some of the areas you suppose are gaps appear to me to be shadows caused by slightly folded-over or recessed raged edges of some of the windings. Who knows?

Well since both of the gaps I pointed out are present on both ends of the scroll it becomes difficult to argue it is due to shadows. In any case even if my examples are ignored do you really find it hard to believe the average white space between the Greenfield papyrus windings is less than this dot "."? Remember this roll has sat around for thousands of years and has apparently lost its elastic tension it is very saggy as old things are prone to be.

However, have you given my experiment a try?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

See my response I don't think your experiment is applicable.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 15, 2011 by Uncertain

[Minos]

And you are exposing yourself once again as an ignorant cheer leader.

This isn't going to be tolerated from anyone. If you can't keep your cool when others are, there are so few participants the thread will just have to be closed.

[Mortal Man]

After reading your excellent explanation earlier about decay occurring more at surface areas, I may now agree with you, though I am not sure how exactly it factors into the respective equations

It doesn't factor into the equations. That's been my whole point all along. To force the physical thickness of the decayed papyrus into the equations is to invalidate their derivation and deny the reality of the measured winding lengths.

William measured his windings to be:

10.48 cm

10.30 cm

10.13 cm

but when he plugs 167 microns into the length formula, he is declaring these measurements to be false and stating that the true windings are:

10.48 cm

10.38 cm

10.27 cm

By using the physical thickness where it doesn't belong, he has contradicted himself. He has replaced a known with an unknown. He has invalidated the very formula he is plugging his thickness into. He has put water in his gasoline tank. Oil in his cereal. Bourbon in the baby bottle.

[Bill Hamblin]

This discussion seems to have run its course to the point of diminishing returns. But I have one last question (unfortunately, many of my questions have remained unanswered).

When the papyri were removed, they appear to have stuck on the mummy or something, which caused the damage. In jerking and pulling the papyrus roll to remove it, it seems quite possible that the outer layers would have been pulled a bit, loosening the outer wraps of the roll. The tearing would have then occurred in the loosened condition, rather than the original tightly wrapped condition. If this occurred, would it effect the winding measurements if the tearing occurred after the papyri were loosened?

[wenglund]

Well someone is misunderstanding the Cook/Smith approach it could very well be me. It is my understanding the effective thickness is calculated on the basis of winding lengths which in turn were obtained by looking at damage done to a rolled up scroll. This means the effective thickness is not the thickness between windings of freshly rolled up sheets of paper or papyri but papyri that has sat around for thousands of years. Or to be more accurate the effective thickness at the time the papyri was damaged. So no I would not expect much space between windings in freshly rolled up paper or papyri. But papyri which has sat around for a thousand years or so and has lost it's elastic tension I would not be surprised to see gaps between windings. In fact this is indeed what you see in all examples of rolled up papyri shown in this thread there are some windings with gaps between them. The greenfield papyrus in particular appears to have many windings with gaps between them. Would these gaps exist when the greenfield papyrus was first rolled I don't know I doubt it. But this is entirely besides the point and the reason why I don't find your experiment to be relevant.

Best, Uncertain

One does not necessarily need to understand the Cook/Smith approach--I don't fully. All one needs to understand is the Cook/Smith results, and what those results look like when displayed graphically.

One of the relevant side benefit of my test (besides beautifully illustrating my previous point--which to some extent you got), is that you get to see other factors as well, like the diameter of the innermost winding. Please notice how large that diameter is (~2.9cm) as compared to the standard diameter for scrolls (.78cm--even this is agreed by both sides to be overly generous).

This should suggest a couple of things to your mind. First, the innermost diameter of my test example with new paper, is radically different from the innermost diameter of papyrus scrolls when they are first wound. Apart from what was illustrated initially by my test, this is another red flag.

Second, given the way that the papyri are typically prepared (sealed and wrapped with whatever), the outer and inner diameters presumably change very little, if at all, over time. So, if your aging counter-argument is to be believed, the only area that might accommodate your hypothesized 4-7 fold increase in space between the windings, is in the decrease in thickness of the papyrus. Surely you aren't going to suggest that over time the papyrus will shrink to a 5th or a 7th of its thickness, are you? Here, then, is another red flag.

Besides, as MM has eloquently pointed out, the location from which the JS papyri were derived (Thebes) was well suited to preserving the papyri--yet another red flag.

Are you starting to see yet the problems we are having with the Cook/Smith results?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

It doesn't factor into the equations. That's been my whole point all along. To force the physical thickness of the decayed papyrus into the equations is to invalidate their derivation and deny the reality of the measured winding lengths.

William measured his windings to be:

10.48 cm

10.30 cm

10.13 cm

but when he plugs 167 microns into the length formula, he is declaring these measurements to be false and stating that the true windings are:

10.48 cm

10.38 cm

10.27 cm

By using the physical thickness where it doesn't belong, he has contradicted himself. He has replaced a known with an unknown. He has invalidated the very formula he is plugging his thickness into. He has put water in his gasoline tank. Oil in his cereal. Bourbon in the baby bottle.

I could be wrong, but I believe the 167m refers to physical thickness rather than effective thickness (assuming at least some difference between the two). According to my calculations, as long as Will's effective thickness is 225m, his winding lengths are fine, though the overall length of the scroll is significantly diminished (from 485.48cm to 360.33cm).

However, I will let bro. Schryver speak for himself since he knows far better than me what he is talking about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

When the papyri were removed, they appear to have stuck on the mummy or something, which caused the damage. In jerking and pulling the papyrus roll to remove it, it seems quite possible that the outer layers would have been pulled a bit, loosening the outer wraps of the roll. The tearing would have then occurred in the loosened condition, rather than the original tightly wrapped condition. If this occurred, would it effect the winding measurements if the tearing occurred after the papyri were loosened?

The instructions column in the BoB says that the scroll "shall be wrapped in royal linen" and the scroll was "torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve". We compute a correlation coefficient of 0.91 (with 1 being a perfect match) for the outermost layers. If the outer layer(s) had come loose before being torn then the correlation coefficient would be near zero.

As a side note, this extremely high correlation is further evidence that the head and knife of Anubis etc. were not on the papyrus when Joseph had it.

[Uncertain]

One does not necessarily need to understand the Cook/Smith approach--I don't fully. All one needs to understand is the Cook/Smith results, and what those results look like when displayed graphically.

One of the relevant side benefit of my test (besides beautifully illustrating my previous point--which to some extent you got), is that you get to see other factors as well, like the diameter of the innermost winding. Please notice how large that diameter is (~2.9cm) as compared to the standard diameter for scrolls (.78cm--even this is agreed by both sides to be overly generous).

This should suggest a couple of things to your mind. First, the innermost diameter of my test example with new paper, is radically different from the innermost diameter of papyrus scrolls when they are first wound. Apart from what was illustrated initially by my test, this is another red flag.

Fair enough, perhaps their inner diameter is to large I have not thought about it enough to have a strong opinion one way or another. In any case this is a side track from the effective thickness issue.

Second, given the way that the papyri are typically prepared (sealed and wrapped with whatever), the outer and inner diameters presumably change very little, if at all, over time. So, if your aging counter-argument is to be believed, the only area that might accommodate your hypothesized 4-7 fold increase in space between the windings, is in the decrease in thickness of the papyrus. Surely you aren't going to suggest that over time the papyrus will shrink to a 5th or a 7th of its thickness, are you? Here, then, is another red flag.

No I am not claiming the papyrus shrink I am pointing to empirical evidence that old scrolls in fact do have windings with considerable space between them. Certainly much more than this ".". So what theoretically may or may not happen it is a empirical fact some scrolls do indeed have considerable space between some of their windings. In the case of the Greenfield scroll it appears at least in some cases the papyrus buckled with age leading to gaps in windings much, much larger than 500 microns. I have arrows pointing to examples.

I don't think your example is relevant in terms of gaps between windings. Because as I pointed out it does not matter what gaps between windings existed in the freshly rolled papyrus it matters what gaps exist in rolls thousands of years old. And indeed old scrolls do appear to at times have quite large gapes between windings. Indeed if Smith/MM effective thickness for a roll thousands of years old was much smaller than it is, this would be suspicious. Given the examples of scrolls seen in this thread that do in fact have windings with gaps between them. In fact given the clear examples of large gaps between windings in the Greenfield scroll I am surprised you still view an average white space between windings of less than this "." to be problematic. These are rolls thousands of years old that have lost their elastic tension is it really all that surprising some of the wrappings have gaps larger than 500 microns between them? Especially given the empirical evidence old papyrus rolls can indeed have rather large gaps between windings.

Best,

Uncertain

Edited November 15, 2011 by Uncertain

[J Green]

I think the discussion has been less than productive for many pages now. And to a certain extent, I'm responsible for this even getting off the ground, so I apologize. You're all invited to my house for some hummus or key lime pie, whichever I have on hand. I also get the feeling that people have started to line up on this issue in some faith/critical dividing line when I don't feel that it needs to be that way. I'm perfectly fine accepting a short or a long scroll, whichever is represented best by the data. I can even play Solomon and cut the scroll in half, if that will make a difference. (Of course I would have to use a scroll saw.)

To that end, as many have pointed out, the winding lengths are really what need to be discussed here. Or in publication Or at a conference. Or however it happens. Wherever that occurs, I for one am interested in the conversation moving forward to that stage without vitriol and rancor so that we can finally move away from thickness.

I raised the thickness issue for one reason. Will let me read his paper and the measurements he provided impressed me. To me they implied a thin, tightly-wound scroll, and when I looked at Chris/Andrew's paper, their derived winding lengths to me implied a very loosely-wound scroll, if you accept Will's measurements of actual thickness. Regardless of winding lengths, the two implications to me seem to be at odds, and I still feel that way, and 16 pages later, I think only Uncertain has really tried to address my concern head on. But his answer still doesn't satisfy what I believe is a real discrepancy between the two pictures that are being presented. I realize that there are all types of scrolls and that some are loosely wound, etc. But if Will's measurements are accurate I just don't think that winding lengths that include almost four times the actual thickness as dead space per winding are going to provide the compactness necessary to preserve the original thickness and prevent separation the more you progress into the interior of the scroll. I simply and honestly think that if Will's measurements are correct, then we're looking at a more compact scroll than is implied by Andrew's "effective thickness" measurements.

That's it. And I realize it's a tangential issue to the length discussion, so I'm perfectly willing to move on to the more important aspect of winding lengths or wait for publication of Will's paper so that all the data can be assessed by Chris and Andrew. Or we can even move on to more important discussions, like Austen's brilliant use of fall imagery in Persuasion.

Regards

[wenglund]

Fair enough, perhaps their inner diameter is to large I have not thought about it enough to have a strong opinion one way or another. In any case this is a side track from the effective thickness issue.

I can see how you might view it that way.

However, I see it differently because I understand the interrelationship between inner and outer circumferences, windings, and space, and I realize that the alleged space between the windings, that supposedly increased with age, isn't created ex nihilo, but must come from somewhere, either by displacement of the inner or outer circumferences (which doesn't seem plausible), declination of the thickness of the papyrus (which also doesn't seem likely), or it was there the whole time (which also doesn't seem likely). Hence, my concern.

But, as always, to each their own.

Granted, I am aware of the seeming spaces you have pointed to in the photo, and I wonder why I don't see any light shinning through from the other end? Could it be that the space doesn't go all the way through, and that the ragged edges of the papyri may be distorted and giving the illusion of large spaces between the windings? I don't know. Without access to real life examinations and/or measurements, it is hard to say. At the very least it gives people such as yourself something to cling to so as to hold out hope for the findings of your friends, and I wouldn't want to take that away from you. So, I will stop trying.

I was going to mention some things about the 500m thickness figures you keep mentioning, but I am fine with just leaving things as is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I think the discussion has been less than productive for many pages now.

My personal experience has been different. I have learned quite a lot throughout this thread, and even the last several pages--probably more than any thread I have participated in. That is saying a lot. So, I thank you.

Maybe this is because I approached this thread not with the intent of defending my position regardless, but open to being educated by the various perspectives. MM and Will and others have opened my eyes to many wonderful new fields of information.

Truth is, It really doesn't matter to me whether the scrolls turn out to be short or long. My faith in the restored gospel of Christ isn't dependent upon having neat and clean answer and explanations for everything. Rather, what matters to me is that the principles and the practices of the gospel better my life and move me towards a Christ-like person, increasing in the enriching spirit and faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 16, 2011 by wenglund

[Uncertain]

I can see how you might view it that way.

However, I see it differently because I understand the interrelationship between inner and outer circumferences, windings, and space, and I realize that the alleged space between the windings, that supposedly increased with age, isn't created ex nihilo, but must come from somewhere, either by displacement of the inner or outer circumferences (which doesn't seem plausible), declination of the thickness of the papyrus (which also doesn't seem likely), or it was there the whole time (which also doesn't seem likely). Hence, my concern.

But, as always, to each their own.

Granted, I am aware of the seeming spaces you have pointed to in the photo, and I wonder why I don't see any light shinning through from the other end? Could it be that the space doesn't go all the way through, and that the ragged edges of the papyri may be distorted and giving the illusion of large spaces between the windings? I don't know. Without access to real life examinations and/or measurements, it is hard to say. At the very least it gives people such as yourself something to cling to so as to hold out hope for the findings of your friends, and I wouldn't want to take that away from you. So, I will stop trying.

I was going to mention some things about the 500m thickness figures you keep mentioning, but I am fine with just leaving things as is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

I think you may have misunderstood my position. I could care less how long the scroll is. I am not married or dating seriously the Smith/MM results. My only point was that I viewed the effective thickness issue as something of a red herring. There may be many substantial reasons to favor Wills model over Smiths/MMs I don't see how the effective thickness measurements is one of them. Is it possible the many gaps I have pointed out in the Greenfield scroll are illusions caused by shadows and my over active imagination? It's possible but I can only go on the examples I have and to me the examples given of scrolls in this thread include some with rather obvious gaps between windings as I have repeatedly pointed out. Now I understand some of the gaps may not extend all the way through the scroll although the fact some of the gaps appear to be in the same places at both ends of the scroll strongly indicates at least some of the gaps do extend through the scroll. Even if they don't extend all the way through the scroll any space at all will likely be factored into the effective thickness calculation because any gaps will have a tendency to shift the winding lengths from what it was when then the scroll was originally rolled up. In any case I am not slavishly devoted to the Smith/MM results I simply and honestly do not see how the effective thickness they calculated is evidence their results are wrong. It seems to be a complete red herring. Whether or not their effective thickness is problematic is contingent on other factors which have not been shown at least in this thread. As has been mentioned multiple times it seems to all boil down to how the winding lengths were calculated.

This may be one of those times we have to be satisfied with "to each their own" . And let the conversation move on.

Best,

Uncertain

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

I think you may have misunderstood my position. I could care less how long the scroll is. I am not married or dating seriously the Smith/MM results. My only point was that I viewed the effective thickness issue as something of a red herring. There may be many substantial reasons to favor Wills model over Smiths/MMs I don't see how the effective thickness measurements is one of them. Is it possible the many gaps I have pointed out in the Greenfield scroll are illusions caused by shadows and my over active imagination? It's possible but I can only go on the examples I have and to me the examples given of scrolls in this thread include some with rather obvious gaps between windings as I have repeatedly pointed out. Now I understand some of the gaps may not extend all the way through the scroll although the fact some of the gaps appear to be in the same places at both ends of the scroll strongly indicates at least some of the gaps do extend through the scroll. Even if they don't extend all the way through the scroll any space at all will likely be factored into the effective thickness calculation because any gaps will have a tendency to shift the winding lengths from what it was when then the scroll was originally rolled up. In any case I am not slavishly devoted to the Smith/MM results I simply and honestly do not see how the effective thickness they calculated is evidence their results are wrong. It seems to be a complete red herring. Whether or not their effective thickness is problematic is contingent on other factors which have not been shown at least in this thread. As has been mentioned multiple times it seems to all boil down to how the winding lengths were calculated.

This may be one of those times we have to be satisfied with "to each their own" . And let the conversation move on.

Best, Uncertain

I understand what you are saying. When I first examined the photo of the Greenfield papyrus it looked to me like, in addition to large spaces throughout the winding, there was a large hole in the center, which I believed may have been from rolling the scroll up using an umbilicus (a wooden dowel). The calculations I ran earlier in the thread and came up with an effective thickness of over 800 micron, were based on my estimating the space in the center to have a diameter of 2cm.

However, it wasn't until Will pointed out that the scroll wasn't rolled with an umbilicus, but was wound to the very core, that I realized that what I thought was a large space, was actually filled with a number of wrappings that I couldn't see until I zoomed way in, and even then I could just barely make out hints of the windings. This, along with other things, made me question what I thought were spaces throughout the windings, but also the lack of wisdom in using photos from the internet to run scroll length calculations--particularly poorly lit and poorly photographed photos.

Be that as it may, and while I believe that effective thickness is a wonderful way of testing the Cook/Smith calculations (it is a key variable in standard formulas for calculating spiral lengths), I am happy to do as you suggest and leave each to their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 17, 2011 by wenglund

[Robert F. Smith]

Most of the Dead Sea papyrus scrolls are about 800 microns thick.

CFR

Over 90% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are not papyrus, but of parchment (scraped and smoothed animal skins), and run from 100 - 200 microns in thickness, i.e., .1 - .2 mm. The parchment Temple Scroll, for example, is about 100 microns thick. The much later Codex Sinaiticus on parchment runs from 100 - 200 microns. The huge cache of Herculaneum Papyri, which BYU has had a hand in analyzing, average 100 - 200 microns in thickness.

Perhaps you could give us a better sense of perspective on all this.

[Robert F. Smith]

I could be wrong, but I believe the 167m refers to physical thickness rather than effective thickness (assuming at least some difference between the two). According to my calculations, as long as Will's effective thickness is 225m, his winding lengths are fine, though the overall length of the scroll is significantly diminished (from 485.48cm to 360.33cm).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Even at that, with a 360.33 cm minimum length for the Hor Papyrus, which would be equivalent to about 3.6 meters in length (3.9 yds), the average Ptolemaic Book of Breathings papyrus was about 320 cm* (3.2 m or 3.5 yards) in length, written on only one side. Plenty of room left for the Book of Abraham even by conservative estimates.

* Michael Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings (FARMS, 2002), 4.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[William Schryver]

What Wade and Bill are missing is the fact that William has the same "problem".

William's winding lengths are:

10.48 cm

10.30 cm

10.13 cm

This corresponds to an effective thickness of 279 microns.

But William's physical thickness is 167 microns.

Should we freak out about the 112 microns of "white space" between the layers?

Should we make snarky comments about the absurdity of rolling such as scroll?

Should we scream that the papyrus thickness invalidates the formula and/or winding measurements?

No, that would only expose our ignorance.

Initially I was simply inclined to believe you were convinced of the correctness of your own methodology. More and more I am have become persuaded that, at least at some level (kind of like Korihor, perhaps?) you recognize your deceptions.

At any rate, given the measurements I have provided, the "effective thickness", or the space between the first and second winding, would be 286 microns. The space between the second and third winding would be 271 microns. (And average of 279 microns, as you say.)

But the space is not constant! (Of course, you know this, but you're hoping our readers won't.) The space continues to decrease with each winding.

By the time you get to the 88th winding, the space is 167 microns (the actual thickness), where it remains until the 94th winding (the final measurable winding) and the total length of the scroll is 482 cm (15.8 ft).

Edited November 17, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

This isn't going to be tolerated from anyone. If you can't keep your cool when others are, there are so few participants the thread will just have to be closed.

Whatever.

Talk about selective and targeted enforcement. I thank you for paying close attention to my posts, but fairness would have suggested you also pay attention to the posts of others. But then you've always liked to pay close attention to my posts, haven't you?

Well, no matter. I will be taking John Gee's advice and henceforth cease discussing these matters via message board.

It was fun (well ... sometimes, at least) while it lasted folks, but, as they say, all good things must come to an end. Dan and I have successfully torn ourselves away from the Great and Spacious Trailer Park. Now the time has come to tear ourselves away from the Great and Spacious Potluck.

May the funeral potatoes and brownies nourish and strengthen your bodies, even if the company doesn't necessarily nourish and strengthen your minds ...

[Senator]

May I ask...

Why is scroll length of interest?

(understand that this is coming from someone who has not followed the discussion)

[Mortal Man]

CFR

Over 90% of the Dead Sea Scrolls are not papyrus, but of parchment (scraped and smoothed animal skins), and run from 100 - 200 microns in thickness, i.e., .1 - .2 mm. The parchment Temple Scroll, for example, is about 100 microns thick. The much later Codex Sinaiticus on parchment runs from 100 - 200 microns. The huge cache of Herculaneum Papyri, which BYU has had a hand in analyzing, average 100 - 200 microns in thickness.

Perhaps you could give us a better sense of perspective on all this.

See here.

When Egyptologists speak of thickness in the context of winding lengths, they are always referring to effective thickness not physical thickness. For example, Stegemann states on page 195, "Thus, for example, if the leather of a tightly wrapped scroll is 0.16mm thick, the increase or decrease from one layer to the next will regularly be 2 times 3.1415... times 0.16 mm, ergo 1.00528 mm, or about 1 mm; if the material involved is 0.8 mm papyrus, the increase or decrease is always about 5mm."

The Temple Scroll is made from leather skin. The leather scrolls have effective thicknesses ranging from 159 microns (Temple Scroll) to 796 microns (4Q Angelic Liturgy). The papyrus scrolls all have effective thicknesses very close to 800 microns.

The current physical thickness of the worn, dessicated, eroded, decayed papyrus is irrelevant.

[Mortal Man]

Even at that, with a 360.33 cm minimum length for the Hor Papyrus, which would be equivalent to about 3.6 meters in length (3.9 yds), the average Ptolemaic Book of Breathings papyrus was about 320 cm* (3.2 m or 3.5 yards) in length, written on only one side. Plenty of room left for the Book of Abraham even by conservative estimates.

* Michael Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings (FARMS, 2002), 4.

If the BoA had been written in the same hieratic font as the BoB, it would have taken up ~511 cm of papyrus on the Hor scroll. Our analysis shows that there was no extra room at all on the Hor scroll for anything but the remainder of the BoB plus Facsimile 3.

The innermost extant winding of the Hor scroll is 8 cm (see Figure 24). Thus the missing papyrus had to fit into a cylinder of radius 1.27 cm. Go get yourself a sheet of papyrus and see how much you can roll up into scroll of diameter 2.54 cm.

[Mortal Man]

But the space is not constant! (Of course, you know this, but you're hoping our readers won't.) The space continues to decrease with each winding.

Actually, it increases slightly as you go in; i.e., pJS 1.3 is a little looser than pJS 1.1 & 1.2.

By the time you get to the 88th winding, the space is 167 microns (the actual thickness), where it remains until the 94th winding (the final measurable winding) and the total length of the scroll is 482 cm (15.8 ft).

[Mortal Man]

May I ask...

Why is scroll length of interest?

(understand that this is coming from someone who has not followed the discussion)

If the scroll is over 6 meters long then the church is true.

If the scroll is shorter than 6 m then the church is false.

Your salvation depends on a few millimeters of winding lengths.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Mortal Man