Hi Jacob,

Nice of you to stop by and offer your correction to my area calculation which I agree with now that you mention it. Which means in order to obtain that decimal inch radius value I posted I have to divide the entire perimeter area into 99^2, or 9801, instead of just 99. Interesting numerator value found in that 9801/9800 Kalima-Gauss comma, I mentioned a time or two before, in my Galleon of Yore post, that corrected the small deficit of the Polar Radius unit of John Michell's Canonical model if you may recall a few yrs. back. I also found it again recently applied to a deficit of Pi ratios to 22/7 that I mentioned to Jim on another matter recently.

I was hoping you would also notice that if I plug in the Fundamental RC cubit value of 144/7 in. ratio to the perimeter of 6300 units, the product would be a familiar Geo arc sec. value of 129,600 ins. And divided by 22/7 = 41236.3636 / 2 = 20618.1818 ala radius instead of perimeter value of 20 34/55 cubit. So whoever laid out this area knew all of these aforesaid unit ratios such as 441/440 that John Michell sort of rediscovered by accidental observation after reading AE Berriman's Metrologic treatise, that used regular Pi to obtain a close similar value of the AE RC. This ratio, is similarly a natural occurrence value when using Pi or seked as 22/7. And yes, you are thorough as ever on the remainder of your description breakdown of the half perimeter base value of 315 also. All of these square values reminds me of the fact of Light illumination or even Gravity falling off at a rate of the square to the distance formula for some reason.

Best Holiday regards once again,

Stephen