Hello Kanga,
I asked, "why was the height of the KC walls increased to 80 palms?

You reply, 'Well, I think you have answered your own question.'

Oops. I meant to write, In your opinion, why...'


You write:
> I would add this. By making each course 16 palms
> high, the designers made sure that the dimensions
> of the wall should be read in palms. So, we have
> three dimensions for the chamber walls as 80p x
> 70p x 140p. As you have implied, the perimeter of
> the end walls then becomes 80 + 80 + 140 + 140 =
> 440p. This is the same number of palms as the
> cubits in the base. The ratio 440:140 reduces to
> 22:7, which we recognize as "pi". This was
> Petrie's original discovery, as I remember, but I
> think it is suggestive rather than persuasive.

Multiplication and division by 3 1/7 appears numerous times in this Pyramid, so I am inclined to think its presence (regardless of whether it relates to pi or not) is persuasive rather than suggestive.
Until I can present in detail my hypothesis in support of this we shall have to agree to disagree.


You write,
> I think the appearance of phi is unintentional. In
> fact, I can't really see phi in these dimensions.
> You would have to add 5 cubits to 11.18 to get 10
> x phi, and there is no dimension of 5 cubits in
> the chamber (though there is in the
> antechamber!).

For an example of how Phi appears in the dimensions of the KC's side (north and south) walls please see:
[books.google.com]


You write,
> Taken in isolation, it may appear that the 3-4-5
> triangle is unintentional - and I would like to
> see that argument - but taken in concert with the
> dimensions of the mortuary temple of 75c x 100c,
> which is exactly 5 times the dimensions of the 3 x
> 4 rectangle contained in the King's Chamber, it
> has to be admitted that the architect was familiar
> with the 3-4-5 triangle.

I am not entirely convinced that the 4th Dyn Egyptians were fully aware of what we know as the Pythagoras Theorem.
I have found that these occurrences of the 3:4:5 triangle can be produced without recourse to this Theorem.


You write,
> Actually, I have another problem with the
> dimensions of the chamber which I have not been
> able to reconcile. The height of the first course
> above the floor is 16p - 1.75p = 57 fingers, or 1
> finger greater than 2 cubits. As I understand it,
> the top of the shafts is supposed to be 2 cubits
> above the floor, and flush with the top of the
> first course of the wall. There is a discrepancy
> here of 1 finger, and I can't account for it.


The top of the shaft openings in the KC are at the top of the first wall course (the south opening has been enlarged upward) – the shafts initially having been channeled out of the top of the blocks.
The cause of the ‘discrepancy’ you mention is down to the fact that the Chamber floor is tilted (from NE corner to SW corner?) by as much as 1.6”.
The first wall course is a mean 47.03”/2.2.28rc high, and the floor ranges from 41.1”/1.992rc to 42.7”/2.07rc below this – i.e. mean 41.9”/2.031rc +/- 0.8”/0.039rc.

Piazzi Smyth found the floor in the N-W corner to be 5” above the base of the wall (a clearly visible joint) and Petrie gives the height of the floor at the Chamber’s doorway (N-E corner of floor) as 4.3”. (see: Piazzi Smyth Life and Work at the Great Pyramid 1867. Vol II page 106, and Flinders Petrie The Pyramids and Temples of Giza 1883. p46.)

Regards,

MJ