> Regarding Rudolf Gantenbrink's CAD...
> The "bends3d.dwf" file is of most interest here.
> You can clearly see the KC Northern shaft and QC
> North shaft deviate around an obstacle, originally
> thought to be the Grand gallery, but as you can
> see in the drawing, the deviation appears to be
> much more than required to clear the GG.
> Hmm! [users.tpg.com.au]
At first it raises the question of why the designers bothered to start the shafts from the QC and KC so far east on those walls in the first place rather than just having them start farther west on the walls so that they could just go up in a straight line rather than bending like that. After all, the 2 southern shafts go up relatively straight without any lateral bends.
On the other hand, we don't know whether the southern shafts would then encounter their own obstacles if they were located farther west on those walls.
Meanwhile, based on the relative E/W registration of the two shaft portals on the opposite walls of each of their corresponding chambers, the designers seemed to want the 2 shaft portals to be in that particular position opposite each other rather than let them be in different E/W positions on those walls to allow them a straight excursion upward.
This suggests that not only are the shafts in each chamber required to be positioned relatively opposite to each other across their corresponding chamber, the shaft portals also were required to be in that specific position on the eastern aspect of those opposing walls, despite all the bending that was required in the northern shafts (for reasons forthcoming, very soon, hopefully).
By the way, despite the substantially different paths of the QC's 2 shafts, they're still both the same length, which hardly strikes me as a coincidence.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?