Scroll Length?

[Mortal Man]

I said John measured 73 windings. I didn't say there were only 73 windings in the scroll! There were many more. John simply got weary of measuring windings after he had done 73--especially since he realized 73 was already overkill in terms of acquiring enough to validate the calculations.

If he'd measured full windings instead of half windings, he might have made it all the way through the scroll.

I also searched through my old e-mails and found that John simply said that the scroll was 3.3 cm prior to being unwound. He didn't say if it was ellliptical. He didn't say if the 3.3 cm measurement was for a minor or major axis. He just said it was 3.3 cm in diameter. That calculates to a ~10.4 cm circumference. He said nothing about the length of the first winding. I'll call him later today or Monday and see if I can get that value from him. But, obviously, it had to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10.4 cm.

No matter how you try to twist it, the simple fact is that the scroll had a pre-unwinding diameter of ~3.3 cm and it unrolled to over 6 meters in length. Yes, that makes for a very thin stock of papyrus.

If this scroll really is over 6 meters in length then I guarantee you its first winding is over 20 cm.

Yes, papyrus was routinely manufactured to a thickness less than that of the hair of my Navajo friends, but thicker than my own hair.

I think you are confused by the term "magical papyri".

It was an amazing technology those Egyptians had.

Now tell us about their invisible papyrus!

You continue to cast doubt (albeit obliquely) on our report that the physical thickness of the papyrus of the scroll of Hor was between 100 and 200 microns. And yet it is. Only one locus measured over 300 microns. It was where the two layers of the papyrus had completely separated and the two separated layers themselves were separating into multiple additional layers. Very few loci measured over 200 microns. The average thickness of JSP I = 185 microns; JSP XI = 165 microns; JSP X = 152 microns. Several loci (the loci that attested the least papyrus layer separation) measured under 150 microns, some as little as 101 microns.

These are, of course, verifiable facts. It will yet be seen that the methodology we employed is beyond reproach. Again, the simple fact is that the physical thickness of the scroll of Hor was ~150 microns, not the 700 microns predicted by your calculations. This is why a knowledge of the papyrus thickness becomes so important as a control in our attempts to calculate the original length of the scroll.

Will, simply quoting invented numbers over and over again does not make them valid. Anybody can do it. Here, I'll give you an example.

The thickness of the Hor papyrus at various loci is (in microns):

684

678

693

598

623

589

645

635

621

.

.

.

See how easy that was?

[Mortal Man]

By the way, Andrew, is that chewed-up, then spit-out Tootsie Roll between your layers of "papyrus"?

You should know Will; it's your scroll.

In addition, it was observed that the relative degree and incidence of fiber separation steadily decreased the further into the roll the measurements were taken. The average thickness of each successive fragment was as follows: JSP I = 185 µm; JSP XI = 165 µm; JSP X = 152 µm.[2]

I propose that the logical explanation for the decreasing incidence of fiber separation towards the inside of the scroll is that the tighter inner windings of the scroll exerted their stored tensile energy such that a “clamping effect” was exerted on the papyrus—an effect that would have diminished toward the outer windings of the scroll. Only a considerable quantity of scroll material, rolled tightly upon itself from a center core, could possibly produce the tensile energy sufficient to explain the observed effect on the papyrus.

This is completely wrong.

Firstly, papyrus does not possess enough elastic strength to have any effect on the thickness of the layers.

Secondly, in a rolled-up sheet of elastic material, the layers press outwards not inwards. The outer layers experience the cumulative pressure of inner layers; whereas the innermost layer floats freely. This is why the inside layer sometimes sticks straight across the center, rather than conforming to the inner wall; there is nothing pressing in on it to make it conform. You can even see this in my Fruit Roll-Up example. If your physics were correct then scrolls would spontaneously tighten up all by themselves. Instead, we observe that rolls of stiff material want to unwind. Take a sheet of aluminum and try to roll it up. You will observe that it gets harder to wind with each revolution. That's because you're working against the elastic strain energy in the earlier windings. You have to press harder and harder to keep going in order to balance the increasing outward force of the inner windings. If you'd prefer, I could explain this in terms of the stress tensor, which I use all the time in my day job.

The upshot is, if papyrus possessed sufficient strength (which it does not) for wound-up layers to compress their neighbors, then the outer layers would be pressed more tightly than the inner layers.

You may wish to go back and rework your data until you get this result.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Mortal Man

[wenglund]

Ok, here you go.

Notice that the white space is pretty thin.

Now show us how far you can unroll it!

Very nice. Did you get that from watching a Martha Stewart special? LOL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hi Mortal Man,

Since you have been such a good sport about this, I was wondering if you would use your formula and manipulated the 2nd and/or 3rd winding lengths .1 cm each time and see what it yields in change of overall scroll length?

Also, you said: "If this scroll really is over 6 meters in length then I guarantee you its first winding is over 20 cm." What are you basing this on?

I ask because using a standard formula for calculating spiral lengths (see the formula I posted earlier in the thread), a spiral with an outer circumference of 10.48 cm measures to 6.63 meters with a distance between spiral branches at 125 micron (thicker than copy paper). In other words, a 6 meter length of copy paper could reasonably be rolled into a spiral with a circumference less than 10.48 cm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

A quick way to determine if the number of windings I propose (106 @ a thickness of 125 micron, or 80 at a thickness of 167 micron), could feasible fit within the scrolls proposed outer circumference of the 10.48 cm, then try measuring the combined thickness of 267 sheets of copy paper @ 100 microns each sheet, to see if it is less than the proposed diameter of the scroll--3.3 cm. (107 sheets * 2 * 1.25 = 267, or 80 * 2 * 1.67 = 267)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[J Green]

Firstly, papyrus does not possess enough elastic strength to have any effect on the thickness of the layers.

Hey, MM. I don't think anyone is arguing that the winding pressure made the papyrus thinner than its original state, which is what you appear to be saying here. Rather, it's a question of preserving the original thickness closer to the center. Thinner with less separation implies a state closer to the orignal, not thinner than the original.

Secondly, in a rolled-up sheet of elastic material, the layers press outwards not inwards. The outer layers experience the cumulative pressure of inner layers; whereas the innermost layer floats freely. This is why the inside layer sometimes sticks straight across the center, rather than conforming to the inner wall; there is nothing pressing in on it to make it conform. You can even see this in my Fruit Roll-Up example. If your physics were correct then scrolls would spontaneously tighten up all by themselves. Instead, we observe that rolls of stiff material want to unwind. Take a sheet of aluminum and try to roll it up. You will observe that it gets harder to wind with each revolution. That's because you're working against the elastic strain energy in the earlier windings. You have to press harder and harder to keep going in order to balance the increasing outward force of the inner windings. If you'd prefer, I could explain this in terms of the stress tensor, which I use all the time in my day job.

This is likely true in Wade's scenario where you encase the scroll in a PVC pipe and allow it to unroll slightly. In the Army we refer to this point as the Case-ons go Scrolling Along (sung with gusto!). But I think our scenario is different. If you look at one of Will's photos as a reference, there is no free-floating core there. The scroll is tightly wound and sealed on the ends with bitumen, the core being tightly wound and rigid. If there is any give here it is along the outer winding between the sealed edges, regardless of pressure direction. The closer to the center you get, the more ridged and compact the windings are. The scroll here is not compressed to a thinner state than the original but the tight, compact windings closer to the center without any give would have prevented the separation we see more of in the outer windings.

BTW, I'm still interested to hear your take on the issue of evaporation in light of the actual thinckness measurements that show a progressively thinner scroll as it gets towards the center. You argued for shrinkage in a foot note of your paper and in previous threads, but the actual measurements appear to "foil" the "shrink wrap" theory. Or am I off base?

Cheers

[Mortal Man]

I'm still interested to hear your take on the issue of evaporation in light of the actual thinckness measurements that show a progressively thinner scroll as it gets towards the center. You argued for shrinkage in a foot note of your paper and in previous threads, but the actual measurements appear to "foil" the "shrink wrap" theory. Or am I off base?

I don't believe that Will's thickness measurements are even remotely accurate, neither do I accept that they show a progression of anything.

Bear in mind that the fragments are glued to backing paper, wrapped in mylar and placed inside plastic sheaths in the presentation book. Separating the thickness of the papyrus from the other material layers is not a trivial matter, even for an experienced metrologist.

William has adopted Gee's MO of not reporting any details whatsoever of his methodology (at least not anywhere I can see them). They just proclaim their numbers to be the Gospel Truth and appeal to their own authority in their support.

I apply the same standard to this issue that my professors applied to me in school; i.e., if you don't show your work, you get zero credit.

[J Green]

Fair enough, MM. I'll wait for publication so the methodology can be discussed more in depth.

[Zeta-Flux]

701 microns

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

Can you give a reference for this claim?

[Zeta-Flux]

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/BrianLey.shtml Thickness of human hair: 17-181 microns (depending on color!, weather, age, and genetics).

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/JuliaSherlis.shtml Thickness of paper: 70-180 microns (again, depending on the type).

[William Schryver]

http://hypertextbook.../BrianLey.shtml Thickness of human hair: 17-181 microns (depending on color!, weather, age, and genetics).

http://hypertextbook...iaSherlis.shtml Thickness of paper: 70-180 microns (again, depending on the type).

FYI:

New Kingdom papyri measured by Jaroslav Cerny averaged 125 microns in thickness. (See A. Lucas, J. R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, 4th Edition, (Dover Publications, 1999), 139. n. 7). The papyri discovered in the Villa dei Papyri at Herculaneum have been measured via Micro CT scan and average 150 microns in thickness. (See Herculaneum Archaeology, Issue 3 (Summer 2005): 5)

[William Schryver]

I don't believe that Will's thickness measurements are even remotely accurate ...

Well, truth be told, I didn't actually measure anything. Nor did Professor Gee. We recruited an expert to do that. I'm sure Dr. Fisher will be amused to learn that you believe his measurements are not even remotely accurate.

... neither do I accept that they show a progression of anything.

Of course you don't. If they're fraudulent to begin with, how could they possibly "show a progression of anything"?

Bear in mind that the fragments are glued to backing paper, wrapped in mylar and placed inside plastic sheaths in the presentation book. Separating the thickness of the papyrus from the other material layers is not a trivial matter, even for an experienced metrologist.

Yes, that was the trick.

William has adopted Gee's MO of not reporting any details whatsoever of his methodology (at least not anywhere I can see them). They just proclaim their numbers to be the Gospel Truth and appeal to their own authority in their support.

And you have adopted the Kevin Graham MO of calling me and John Gee liars. How charming.

Edited November 14, 2011 by William Schryver

[Bill Hamblin]

Will, simply quoting invented numbers over and over again does not make them valid. Anybody can do it. Here, I'll give you an example.

The thickness of the Hor papyrus at various loci is (in microns):

684

678

693

598

623

589

645

635

621

.

.

.

See how easy that was?

So are you telling me that you actually got the original papyri, took them out of the encasing sheets and made numerous measurements yourself? If not, how did you get your thickness measurements?

[William Schryver]

So are you telling me that you actually got the original papyri, took them out of the encasing sheets and made numerous measurements yourself? If not, how did you get your thickness measurements?

Read what he said more carefully, Bill. He's mocking us. His numbers are invented--just as he claims ours are.

[Bill Hamblin]

I don't believe that Will's thickness measurements are even remotely accurate, neither do I accept that they show a progression of anything.

Bear in mind that the fragments are glued to backing paper, wrapped in mylar and placed inside plastic sheaths in the presentation book. Separating the thickness of the papyrus from the other material layers is not a trivial matter, even for an experienced metrologist.

William has adopted Gee's MO of not reporting any details whatsoever of his methodology (at least not anywhere I can see them). They just proclaim their numbers to be the Gospel Truth and appeal to their own authority in their support.

I apply the same standard to this issue that my professors applied to me in school; i.e., if you don't show your work, you get zero credit.

So, where did you get your measurements?

It seems like everyone agrees:

1- if the papyri is thin and tightly wrapped, it could be long enough to theoretically include the BOA.

2- if the papyri is thick and loosely wrapped, it would not be long enough.

Does everyone agree?

The only real question left is: how thick are the JS papyri.

Will says a Dr. Fischer measured the actual JS papyri. Could we get more details on this?

Andrew says Will and Gee are lying about this.

Will has also provided average thickness of papyri from ancient Egypt indicating average thickness of 135-150 microns.

At this thickness, the JS papyri roll would have been long enough to include the BOA, right?

Andrew claims the JS papyri are very thick, but it is not clear how he obtained his figures. Can you give us (or cite a reference) for the thicknesses you claim?

[Bill Hamblin]

Read what he said more carefully, Bill. He's mocking us. His numbers are invented--just as he claims ours are.

D'oh! You mean he's lying?!?!?! OK, maybe he's joking.

In re-browsing the article, he seems to me that they are actually merely guessing the thickness of the papyri. Is that correct? They didn't actually measure anything? Really? Andrew is engaged in all this arrogant posturing and claims of absolute certitude based on the fact that he is guessing how thick the papyri are?

Frankly, it's pretty astonishing. I hope Andrew can give us a more detailed explanation.

If not it seems that:

1- Andrew did not actually measure the thickness of the JS papyri, and is guessing about how thick they are.

2- Fischer actually did measure the papyri, but Andrew thinks they must be lying about it because the measurements of the papyri are thinner than his guess of how thick they should be.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

Will has explained the measuring methodology to me in a private message. It will eventually be published in a forthcoming article. It seems to me the methodology is very clever, very strait forward, and absolutely empirical. It was undertaken by an independent third party (i.e. not Gee or Schryver) with PhD-level, technical and commercial expertise in the field of metrology. I can say with a high degree of confidence that Andrew and Chris are wrong, and Will is right.

[Calm]

Will has explained the measuring methodology to me in a private message. It will eventually be published in a forthcoming article. It seems to me the methodology is very clever, very strait forward, and absolutely empirical. It was undertaken by an independent third party (i.e. not Gee or Schryver) with PhD-level, technical and commercial expertise in the field of metrology.

But is he LDS?

[Chris Smith]

Will has explained the measuring methodology to me in a private message. It will eventually be published in a forthcoming article. It seems to me the methodology is very clever, very strait forward, and absolutely empirical. It was undertaken by an independent third party (i.e. not Gee or Schryver) with PhD-level, technical and commercial expertise in the field of metrology. I can say with a high degree of confidence that Andrew and Chris are wrong, and Will is right.

The measured thickness of the papyrus has little to do with our findings. Average measured thickness merely imposes an upper limit on how much papyrus it would be physically possible to fit into a scroll of a given circumference. The actual amount of papyrus will be below that upper figure, depending on how loosely or tightly the papyrus was wound. (As I noted earlier in the thread, Hartmut Stegemann found that shorter scrolls tend to be loosely wound, whereas longer ones are tightly wound.) Our methodology doesn't require knowledge of either thickness or winding tightness (though it does provide information that can be used to deduce winding tightness if average thickness is known).

[Fifth Columnist]

The measured thickness of the papyrus has little to do with our findings. Average measured thickness merely imposes an upper limit on how much papyrus it would be physically possible to fit into a scroll of a given circumference. The actual amount of papyrus will be below that upper figure, depending on how loosely or tightly the papyrus was wound. (As I noted earlier in the thread, Hartmut Stegemann found that shorter scrolls tend to be loosely wound, whereas longer ones are tightly wound.) Our methodology doesn't require knowledge of either thickness or winding tightness (though it does provide information that can be used to deduce winding tightness if average thickness is known).

MM has repeatedly stated as much, but Bill doesn't seem to get it.

[Fifth Columnist]

In re-browsing the article, he seems to me that they are actually merely guessing the thickness of the papyri. Is that correct? They didn't actually measure anything? Really? Andrew is engaged in all this arrogant posturing and claims of absolute certitude based on the fact that he is guessing how thick the papyri are?

Frankly, it's pretty astonishing. I hope Andrew can give us a more detailed explanation.

It's pretty astonishing that MM has explained this over and over and you still don't get it. The only measurements that matter are the winding measurements. MM and Chris traced the actual papyri to get their winding measurements. The derived an estimate of the thickness from the winding measurements, but the thickness is really not relevant to the question about the length of the scroll (yes, I understand it sets an upper limit on the length of the scroll, but that does not tell us its actual length).

[William Schryver]

The measured thickness of the papyrus has little to do with our findings. Average measured thickness merely imposes an upper limit on how much papyrus it would be physically possible to fit into a scroll of a given circumference. The actual amount of papyrus will be below that upper figure, depending on how loosely or tightly the papyrus was wound. (As I noted earlier in the thread, Hartmut Stegemann found that shorter scrolls tend to be loosely wound, whereas longer ones are tightly wound.) Our methodology doesn't require knowledge of either thickness or winding tightness (though it does provide information that can be used to deduce winding tightness if average thickness is known).

Of course, you're wrong, and you know it. You're simply trying to bluff your way out of this bind, just as you have attempted to do many times recently.

The thickness of the papyrus is not a necessary value in order to calculate the length of the scroll. What it is, however, is a very excellent control on the methodology employed to calculate the length of the scroll. As Andrew's clumsy attempt to illustrate what your scroll would like has amply demonstrated to the readers of this thread, your methodology predicts a scroll that simply could not be.

If the actual physical thickness of the papyrus stock of the scroll of Hor averages 167 microns, Andrew knows that presents a fatal problem for the Cook/Smith thesis. That is why he has so adamantly stated that our measurements cannot be "even remotely accurate." That is why he has so adamantly insisted (as you yourself also have in the past) that the actual physical thickness of the papyrus is in the neighborhood of 700 microns. Simply put, it must be in the neighborhood of 700 microns for the Cook/Smith methodology to have any credibility.

But it isn't.

Our measurements return an average of 167 microns, decreasing the further into the scroll you go.

This is why Andrew has also attempted to cast doubt on Professor Gee's report of the Toronto scroll that, much like the scroll of Hor, had a rolled-up diameter of ~3.3 cm and unrolled to over 6 meters.

Andrew is apparently so desperate over these points that he has resorted to accusing Professor Gee and me (and Dr. Fisher, who performed the actual thickness measurements on the papyrus) of inventing fraudulent measurements; suggesting (as his buddy Kevin Graham is wont to do) that we are all a bunch of big fat liars.

Well, the big fat liar gambit is not going to work so well when it comes to verifiable empirical data.

I think you would be better advised to do as Andrew flippantly suggested above:

"You may wish to go back and rework your data until you get this result."

Edited November 14, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

It's pretty astonishing that MM has explained this over and over and you still don't get it. The only measurements that matter are the winding measurements. MM and Chris traced the actual papyri to get their winding measurements. The derived an estimate of the thickness from the winding measurements, but the thickness is really not relevant to the question about the length of the scroll (yes, I understand it sets an upper limit on the length of the scroll, but that does not tell us its actual length).

No, you're the one who still doesn't "get it." No one is suggesting that the thickness measurements are necessary to calculate an estimated length (although you can calculate an estimated length with the value of one winding and the value of the thickness).

However, the papyrus thickness is an excellent control over any methodology that attempts to estimate the total length of the scroll. This has become amply apparent over the course of this thread (and was most excellently illustrated by Andrew's clumsy attempt to produce a facsimile of the scroll predicted by the Cook/Smith methodology).

The Cook/Smith methodology predicts a papyrus thickness of 700 microns. For their methodology to be accurate, the papyrus must be somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 microns thick. But it isn't. It is much less than that. In fact, the thickness measurements of the scroll of Hor are consistent with a scroll similar to the one Dr. Gee observed unrolled in Toronto; a scroll that was over 6 meters in length.

In my article, I have leaned toward the conservative in all things, and therefore predict a scroll length of ~5 meters. That said, I think it quite likely that the original scroll was the length of two standard production papyrus rolls linked together, or 6.4 meters. In any case, it was a long roll, separate and distinct from the mounted fragments that have survived to the present day, just as was reported by several contemporary eyewitnesses, whose testimony (some of which has never been published) I cite in my article.

Edited November 14, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

But is he LDS?

You are a prophetess.

This will, of course, be the next line of defense, once it becomes apparent that Dr. Fisher's education, training, and experience are not susceptible to attack. In the eyes of the anti-Mormon host, he will quickly join the ranks of those LDS (like John Gee and Will Schryver) who are simply "lying for the Lord."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

MM has repeatedly stated as much, but Bill doesn't seem to get it.

I think some people in this thread are not getting something.

MM the scroll you came up with is the funniest thing I have seen in a while. Keep up the good work.