Lets be clear on this so called raised floor of yours.
I still maintain that your 100% wrong in thinking that there is a raised floor, we are all aware that the floor of the kings chamber sits inside the walls , hence the walls go lower down past the floor, just as the passage floor does, but because the designer chose to arrange his chamber like that does not equate to it being seen as being raised, i would suggest the reason for such a design is one of stress release by dissipating the downward thrust into the limestone courses, as they thought their brittle granite floor would crack under the immense pressure from above , and at times of earthquakes would magnify any force .
Lets look at why Petrie used the word raised .
Its quite obvious that he used the word raised in describing a very small difference between the passage floor and the kings chamber floor, of 0.8"
Passage floor 1692
Kings chamber 1692.8
So there you have it, you have misunderstood Petries word as meaning the whole floor is raised when he ment just that 0.8 difference.
So i think you have taken a wrong turn with this one MJT and i would advise you to rethink your idea about this so called raised floor of yours.
Then lets confirm the real height of the Kings chamber from the one and only floor, that can be walked upon .
So using Petrie's suggested + or - leeway we can find what may have been the intended height, and there does seem to a lot of number significance in 230.4" and 19.2 ft.
I think the reason you are regretting this debate is you are realising your the one that has made the mistake.
Corrected a couple of mistakes
Post Edited (17-Jun-15 21:43)