Egyptian Core 7:
I am still amazed that ones who study ancient technology that they overlook the obvious. For example, in studying Egyptian Core 7 these people refer to ancient Egyptian religious text in an attempt to find the answers, but what has become normal accepted practice they ignore the Bible as a reference work. If those who study acient technology will use Egyptian, Babylon, Greece and other religious text why do they insist on ignoring the Bible as a reference? It tells me that they simply disregard the Bible as a book of myth, yet text of the Bible predate many ancient civilizations. Here is an interesting text:
"Also, Zillah gave birth to Tubal-cain, who forged every sort of tool of copper and iron. And the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah." Gen 4:22
The time this verse points to is over 7,000 years ago, yet in studying Egyptian Core 7 the focus is only on copper tools. Here's why they focus only on copper. It is accepted teaching that civilization developed technology in "ages", copper age, bronze age, iron age... This is taught and accepted to have happened on a worldwide basis. But that is narrow thinking, to believe that all groups of people in all parts of the world followed the exact same steps in development.
So suppose the Egyptians did have iron? That changes a lot. Suppose the drill to make Core 7 was made of iron and used a diamond grit bit. Also we know that in ancient Babylon they had produced electricity through the use of batteries, who is to say that the Egyptians did not also develop some sort of electricity? But where is the archeological evidence?
Given the nature of the Egyptian government, the Pharaoh was god, and their highly religious nature, some tools and technology feel under the supervision of the temple priest, so few would have been manufactured. So three possibilities exist,
1) The evidence is still buried under miles of sand.
2) Aa an iron tool they simply rusted away.
3) A conquering nation took the items & technology.
People grasp for an explanations, space visitors, gods from the heavens,  time travel. But what if the answer was as simple as that they had developed greater forms of technology that we have as yet to uncover the evidence for? Today we have MASS production. We don't just make 1 Skill saw milions are made. But when cost of production is high and no assembly lines in super factories exist, then only a very few "Skill saws" would be made, perhaps only one. That being the case it would fall under the supervision of temple priest and the priestly class would be the skilled labor to use that tool. I see the biggest hurdle to understanding past technology is our current understanding of massly produced technology. Also a skilled tool and skilled laborer would give that person or class of persons power and control. Suppose you had the ability to take a TV/Blu-Ray player back to the year 300 BCE and you showed the movie "300" To the Greeks, you would hold untold power and control, perhaps enought to change the direction of Alexander.
Technology did NOT start out with sticks & stones with men coming out of caves with a big club dragging a woman by her hair. Technology started near the top and like an up and down seesaw has risen and fallen over the centuries.

I got my March 2015 issue of Scientific American & started reading right away. On page 24 was a 1 page article entitled "Ode to the Messenger". It discussed the end of the Messenger mission to Mercury. In the article they mention "Weird Magnetic Field - In the 1970's Mariner 10's flyby revealed that Mercury has a magnetic field. Yet Messenger's observations showed that, strangely, the field is not centered inside the planet but instead is offset towars its north pole. Theorist have yet to explain what causes this asymmetry. "
I shared this with my son and we both thought it odd. A magnetic field is created when a solid metal core, such as Earth's nickle core, turns at a much faster rate than the molten area and the crust. This difference in spin creates a magnetic field. So as far as current thinking, in order to form a magnetic field the core must be centered and solid and round and a form or magnetized metal. Mercury does not have that setup. So my son put forth his theory,  what if the core of Mercury was cylinder, a long cylinder metal "rod" or shaft that turns at a higher rate than the molten core. This would make sense with our current understanding of Mercury.

In the March 2015 issue of Scientific American is an article written by Kevin J. Tracey. I got about 1/3 way through with the article and had to stop. This man, Kevin, has a serious "I" problem. In fact the very first sentence is an omen to how the rest of the article will read, "I am a brain surgeon...I examine. " "In 1987 I published" He often mentions his "colleagues by referring to them as "we" (he includes himself with "we" although he also will use "I" in the same statement giving himself double credit). At no time does he mention any colleague by name, just that they assisted "I" in "me" in "my" discoveries.  Later he says
"I became immediately concerned, though, that someone else must have already thought of this seemingly obvious biological mechanism. "
At that sentence I was really repulsed.  This guy is not concerned at all with truly helping mankind.  His entire focus is getting his name in print for a discovery that will put his peers to shame. This guy is so ego driven that it over clouds his research, or in reality the research of his staff that he puts his name on. I was very disappointed that Scientific American printed his article as is, it should have been edited, or rather his ego should have been edited out. Because of his above quoted statement I wondered if someone else had done or started the research would Kevin had stopped his? The way he stated what he did it appears that if anyone else had gotten into his research field he would have stopped so as not to share any credit for his findings. I have attempted to read other papers written by ones with similar personalities,  but as with this one I could not see past his huge "I".