jacob boaz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 99/70 is not a bad figure, but only half of the
> equation from my perspective. There is a third
> option based on 10/9 the rise run of G1, which
> totals 140/99 = 1 + 1/3 + 1/18 + 1/66 + 1/99
> derived as (1 + 1/4 + 1/44) x (1 + 1/9) which is
> G1.s rise run 14/11 x 10/9 = 140/99.
> 2 / 99/70 = 140/99, therefore 99/70 x 140/99 = 2.

> Most who throw out these numbers don’t think about
> obtaining, by mathematical process, the square
> root 2, since it is only necessary is to press a
> button on a calculator. It is a process which
> seems, to me, to be more labor intensive, using
> our current guess & check method used for
> finding square roots centuries prior to the more
> advanced algorithm and the invention of the slide
> rule and calculator.

One cannot state the corner edge slope of G1 is 9:10. The corner edge slope (seked) of G1, if they were interested in it at all, would have been calculated from the dimensions of the half-diagonal and the height, but the value of the half-diagonal depends on which value of sqrt2 one is using, and as you state, one should not be using the calculator value.

What value of the half-diagonal were you using to calculate the 9:10 slope?


> Regarding the Bent Pyramid gradients.

> The lower seked of 4 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/15 palms run 7
> and a rise 10, A seked of , 4 + 1/2 + 1/3
> + 1/15 / 2/3 = 7 + 1/3 + 1/60, (i.e. 4 9/10 / 2/3
> = 7 7/20)

The seked of the lower part (4 + 9/10) palms is better expressed as 4 + 2/3 + 1/6 + 1/15 palms, as 2/3 has its own sign. However the seked of the Bent upper is commonly accepted as 7 + 1/2 palms, not 7 + 7/20 palms. Its dimensions are: ht = 110c; base (bendline) = 235c 5p.

Kanga





Hail Atlantis.