> This strongly suggests that there is something
> very important about those shafts that not only
> requires them to be in such a positional
> relationship to each other, but also requires them
> to be in that particular location on the eastern
> aspect of the KC walls to warrant such a
> contortion in excursion.
> The plot thickens.
The exit position on the east west axis within the KC was of critical importance. Therefore making it necessary to navigate the air shaft around the designed, but not yet constructed Big Void. The position of Big Void also being of critical importance. This is a design compromise.
Also the air shaft navigates in a series of or angled straight sections forming a gradual bend as opposed to the 90 degree right angles we see everywhere else on the horizontal axis. Again a design compromise.
It appears that the optimum configuration would have been a straight air shaft exiting the KC at the critical position. This was obviously not possible within the overall design.
It also appears that two simple 90 degree bends were also out of the question.
In terms movement/transmission/communication a gradual bend is superior to two 90 degree bends, and the next best thing to a straight shaft.
A design compromise.. (A literal 'work around')
Question is.. What overall design constraint forced the builders to adopt this arrangement?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06-Nov-17 11:37 by Jon Ellison.