Q. What about other so-called Pyramid Shapes?

A. Your comments about the tall, 4 x 4 base sides pyramid are appreciated. With nearly a century of orthodox scientific, and pseudo scientific research to support or deny the efficacy of pyramid (form) energy, I'd like to offer these comments: The Columbia Encyclopedia, defines the pyramid form in this way:

"The true pyramid exists only in Egypt, though the term has been applied to structures of a similar, general shape found in other countries." [Structures of a pyramidal form are not necessarily true pyramids.] With this in mind, we must also honor years of serious experimentation and reports involving miniaturized, model representations of the Great Pyramid, whose true angles and degrees are an established, scientific fact (the interior included angle is arbitrarily accepted as 51 degrees 51 minutes 14.3 seconds) The Great Pyramid's triangular sides which join at the apex, slope at an angle with the ground at approximately fifty degrees. Thus, any pyramidal shape that deviates in structure from the mother form, is therefore not a true pyramid. It is an altered pyramidal shape.

Scientists have also publicly demonstrated, that if one pours dry beach sand out of a container onto a flat surface, as the sand pile grows ever taller, its slope will continually remain at the same angle as the Great Pyramid at Giza. By comparison, similar yet individual characteristics exist between pylons, cylinders, columns, minarets or obelisks. If there were no difference between them, of course we wouldn't have so many names and styles defining them. Even a barrel may be quite different than a basic cylinder or that of a cube. Their shapes and form energy actions are not the same. In actual practice, as we also know for example, wines and beer are commonly stored in barrels. Reports indicate that if beer or wine is kept in squared (cube-like) containers, the contents will soon go flat.

But back to the altered pyramidal framework you mentioned. Over time, I think you will find that reactions vary from subject to subject. Accumulated data is extremely important. A few testimonials without solid, responsible research to back them up are of limited value, that is, within the larger scope of the worldwide pyramid investigations that have been going on over the decades. Still, we are without any published experimental results involving the "ben ben" type structure. So these comments are not directed at attacking your findings - for all useful information is welcome. It is the potential for mis-labeling the form's precise angles that are in question.

Good Luck, Bill