With great pleasure;
I have been reading a pdf which David had mentioned re Harry Sievertsen and in it he produces measure which I have been searching as they are very accurate. I had Petrie's and others but;
Quote 'Thom made the outer circumference of the Sarsen Circle 48 megalithic rods or 326.4 feet. This results in a diameter [using modern pi] of 103.8963469 feet. Deducting the inner diameter from Petrie at 97.325 we have 6.57134685 or 3.285673425 for the lintel width. Atkinson had this value at circa 3.5 feet and the calculations show that within a fine tolerance this is correct. Yet Thom makes this lintel over 2.5 inches narrower than this…obviously this measure is astray somewhere. Using the evaluation that works here of 30 x 3.475748571 for the outer diameter we have 104.2724571 feet which is 4.51332276 inches more than the calculation from Thom. Circumference in this narrative is seen as 3.475748571 [lintel width]
15
x 80 x 1.17857142 [HSMF see below] Evidently the 48 megalithic rods does not exactly comply here and indeed our diameter x modern pi results in 327.5815853 feet which is 48.17376285 megalithic rods, an increase of 1.181585291 feet over the round figure assessment of Thom.'
If anyone has read my essay 'From the Rollrights to Stonehenge a measure' then you would know of an old British measure the Saxon foot 13.2 inches which turns out to be identical to the measure used in the Indus Valley.
You may also know the diameter of the Rollrights = 103.4 imperial feet and in the old Saxon measures 94 saxon feet 13.2 inches. It now appears the outer diameter of the Sarsen is the same diameter 103.896 feet.
When 103.4 imperial feet is converted to Saxon feet 13.2 inches then you have a diameter of 94 feet, a very special number.
Any circle with a diameter of 94 feet/metres produces a circumference with a number 295.309 equal to that of a synodic month 29.5306 days and the area of the circle equal to what is known as a Metonic cycle discovered by the Greek Meton in 432BC 6939.778 square Saxon feet.
According to the figures given above in the quote from Mr Sievertsen Thom's calculations render a diameter very nearly exactly that of the Rollright Stones 103.4 imperial feet 31.516m. ie Thom's 103.896 feet a difference of 5.9 inches is tiny.
It makes complete sense that Stonehenge architects are using the same measures.
The architects are here using the old Saxon measure and the imperial system of measures which I believe is also an ancient measure.
copyright 2018 Jim Wakefield
I have been reading a pdf which David had mentioned re Harry Sievertsen and in it he produces measure which I have been searching as they are very accurate. I had Petrie's and others but;
Quote 'Thom made the outer circumference of the Sarsen Circle 48 megalithic rods or 326.4 feet. This results in a diameter [using modern pi] of 103.8963469 feet. Deducting the inner diameter from Petrie at 97.325 we have 6.57134685 or 3.285673425 for the lintel width. Atkinson had this value at circa 3.5 feet and the calculations show that within a fine tolerance this is correct. Yet Thom makes this lintel over 2.5 inches narrower than this…obviously this measure is astray somewhere. Using the evaluation that works here of 30 x 3.475748571 for the outer diameter we have 104.2724571 feet which is 4.51332276 inches more than the calculation from Thom. Circumference in this narrative is seen as 3.475748571 [lintel width]
15
x 80 x 1.17857142 [HSMF see below] Evidently the 48 megalithic rods does not exactly comply here and indeed our diameter x modern pi results in 327.5815853 feet which is 48.17376285 megalithic rods, an increase of 1.181585291 feet over the round figure assessment of Thom.'
If anyone has read my essay 'From the Rollrights to Stonehenge a measure' then you would know of an old British measure the Saxon foot 13.2 inches which turns out to be identical to the measure used in the Indus Valley.
You may also know the diameter of the Rollrights = 103.4 imperial feet and in the old Saxon measures 94 saxon feet 13.2 inches. It now appears the outer diameter of the Sarsen is the same diameter 103.896 feet.
When 103.4 imperial feet is converted to Saxon feet 13.2 inches then you have a diameter of 94 feet, a very special number.
Any circle with a diameter of 94 feet/metres produces a circumference with a number 295.309 equal to that of a synodic month 29.5306 days and the area of the circle equal to what is known as a Metonic cycle discovered by the Greek Meton in 432BC 6939.778 square Saxon feet.
According to the figures given above in the quote from Mr Sievertsen Thom's calculations render a diameter very nearly exactly that of the Rollright Stones 103.4 imperial feet 31.516m. ie Thom's 103.896 feet a difference of 5.9 inches is tiny.
It makes complete sense that Stonehenge architects are using the same measures.
The architects are here using the old Saxon measure and the imperial system of measures which I believe is also an ancient measure.
copyright 2018 Jim Wakefield