C Wayne Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Dave,
>
> Top of granite floor: 42.96 to 43.02
> Bottom of roof beams: 48.81 to 48.87
>
> Also shown for the distance: 5.84
>
> M&R. Vol 4, Plate 7.
Hello C Wayne,
I am having difficulting matching these figures to Petrie's
Petrie writes: "The average variation of the thickness of the courses from their mean is 0.051", the mean being 47.045" between similar joints, or including the top course, which was necessarily measured in a different way, 47.040" +/- 0.013"
I interpret this as:
min height of walls = (47.04" - 0.013") x 5 = 47.027" x 5 = 235.135"
max height of walls = (47.04" + 0.013") x 5 = 47.053" x 5 = 235.265"
Mean height of walls = 235.2" +/- 0.065"
Now, "Top of granite floor: 42.96 to 43.02" is presumably M & R's measurement of the first wall course taken from the mean level of the surface of the raised floor.
The problem here is that Petrie's mean measurement is 47.04" - 5.11" = 41.93", which an inch less than M & R's mean 42.99".
I presume that "Also shown for the distance: 5.84" is M & R's measurement of the distance between base of the Chamber walls and the mean surface level of the raised floor.
If this is so, then it is noticably greater than Petrie’s mean 5.11” +/- 0.12 and therefore, IMO, unlikely to be correct.
The floor of this Chamber is tilted corner to corner (NE to SW?) by about 2".
I suggest that this could be what is causing the disparity between Petrie's and M & R's measurements of and from the surface of the raised floor.
"Bottom of roof beams: 48.81 to 48.87" appears to be M & R’s “Top of granite floor: 42.96 to 43.02” plus “Also shown for the distance: 5.84”
42.96 + 5.84 = 48.8
43.02 + 5.84 = 48.86
As far as I am aware, there is no dimension of 48.81” to 48.87” in the King’s Chamber.
Regards,
MJ