Hi Kanga,
20.632 cubit in the Grand Gallery? That would indicate the designers/builders changed cubit lengths at the threshold of the Grand Gallery. From 20.62 to 20.632 inches.
[
www.ronaldbirdsall.com] section 149
Petrie states this regarding the ascending passageway
“The length of the ascending passage is 1546.5 inches; this is equal to 75 cubits of 20.620; and therefore is 3/8 of the length of the entrance passage.”
So did the Ancient Egyptians switch cubits at the junction of the Grand Gallery and ascending passageway.[/i]
Then back again for the Kings Chamber? Petrie states in section 150
“Now by the mean original dimensions of the chamber the side walls are 412.25 long, and the ends 206.13, exactly half the amount. Taking, then, either of these as the basis of a diameter or radius of a circle, the wall height, if the sides are the circumference of such circle, will be 235.32 ±.10, and this only varies from the measured amount within the small range of the probable errors.”
Petrie further states in section 155:
Width 206.12 ± .12 squared, is 100 cubits of 20.612 ± .012
Length 412.24 ± .12 squared, is 400 cubits of 20.612 ± .006
Height 230.09 ± .15 squared, is 125 cubits of 20.580 ± .014
Switching cubit length at the doorway and back is the only way to accept what Petrie states in section 153
“The simplest theory of all is that the dimensions were all regulated by even numbers of cubits.”
Personal opinion: Sometimes simple theories and methods do not always reflect the truth.
I would be inclined to think even number of cubits might be a bit unrealistic. So I would be inclined to suggest, for the sloping length of the Grand Gallery, in lieu of the 88 cubits to be 88 + 1/22 = 88 cubits + 1 digit + 3 of the 1/11 digit subdivisions. Don’t let that digit figure throw you, It is 88 cubits + 14/11 digits. Using the arbitrary cubit value of 20.62 throughout makes more sense than changing the length a cubit which has proved to be mostly accurate for the Ascending Passageway and other applications.
It should be understood non-whole-number values are derived from secondary steps and are subordinate to whole numbers.
You are, of course, free to calculate this in whatever manner you feel to be correct.
Regards,
Jacob