Re: Permanent DST

[Frank King]

Dear John,

You are right to point out the error
of Doug's ways.  I have been known to
do this myself :-)

That said, this isn't quite right
either...

> It is only the benighted people who
> are forced to live in the northern
> hemisphere who persist with the
> belief of a southerly sun.

I have several times seen the sun due
north in the northern hemisphere: in
the Arctic and in Singapore, to take
two examples.

Likewise, you can see the sun due
SOUTH in the Antarctic and, without
leaving Australia, you can see the
sun due south in Darwin or Cairns
or, indeed, anywhere just a little
bit north of Alice Springs.

Next month is a good time of year
to see whether I am right!

Very best wishes

Frank

---
https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial

Re: Permanent DST

[John Pickard]

Hi Douglas,

In the spirit of accuracy, I have to point out (very gently so as to not cause 
offence) that noon actually occurs when the sun is due NORTH. It is only the 
benighted people who are forced to live in the northern hemisphere who persist 
with the belief of a southerly sun.


Cheers, John

John Pickard
john.pick...@bigpond.com 

Sydney, Australia
33o 39.5’S 151o 06.4’E



From: Douglas Bateman 
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2016 5:31 AM
To: Barbara and Augustine McCaffrey 
Cc: Sundial list 
Subject: Re: Permanent DST

Dear Barbara and Augustine, 

I am flattered that you are following this dialogue, and I’m sure Frank is too.

Frank wishes to wind up the discussion, and this can be my final, and personal, 
contribution.

First of all, it is obvious that Frank is both happy to be a very early riser 
and is prepared to challenge any topic and any assumptions. For example the 
‘effective day centred on 3pm’.

If I rise very early in the summer, I may be enthralled by a sunrise or quiet 
dawn (and wonder if this is the best part of the day). However, I like to have 
8 hours of sleep, AND enjoy long summer evenings, glass in hand. It follows 
that for most days, I am prepared to sacrifice the early hours, and therefore 
my day may run from 7am to 10 or 11pm.  3pm is therefore a nominal middle of 
the waking day. Society in the UK as a whole seems happy with this, and is the 
basic reason for daylight saving time.

When winter approaches, the clocks are put back with many grumbles about the 
darker evenings. Without delving into accident statistics, it is obvious that 
the risks to school children walking or cycling home in the dark are increased. 
It is equally obvious that motorists driving home in the dark after a tiring 
day, and impatient to be home, increase the risks as well, both to themselves 
and others.

I’m sure that these opinions, and similar, may have have caused some countries 
to adopt DST on a permanent basis.

Ultimately we can define time to be whatever we want it to be, and even ignore 
the historical convention of noon when the sun is due south, even if this 
offends some of the sundial enthusiasts.

Glad to know you have enjoyed the fun, even if there is a serious element.

Best wishes, Doug

---
https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial

Re: Permanent DST

[Douglas Bateman]

Dear Barbara and Augustine,

I am flattered that you are following this dialogue, and I’m sure Frank is too.

Frank wishes to wind up the discussion, and this can be my final, and personal, 
contribution.

First of all, it is obvious that Frank is both happy to be a very early riser 
and is prepared to challenge any topic and any assumptions. For example the 
‘effective day centred on 3pm’.

If I rise very early in the summer, I may be enthralled by a sunrise or quiet 
dawn (and wonder if this is the best part of the day). However, I like to have 
8 hours of sleep, AND enjoy long summer evenings, glass in hand. It follows 
that for most days, I am prepared to sacrifice the early hours, and therefore 
my day may run from 7am to 10 or 11pm.  3pm is therefore a nominal middle of 
the waking day. Society in the UK as a whole seems happy with this, and is the 
basic reason for daylight saving time.

When winter approaches, the clocks are put back with many grumbles about the 
darker evenings. Without delving into accident statistics, it is obvious that 
the risks to school children walking or cycling home in the dark are increased. 
It is equally obvious that motorists driving home in the dark after a tiring 
day, and impatient to be home, increase the risks as well, both to themselves 
and others.

I’m sure that these opinions, and similar, may have have caused some countries 
to adopt DST on a permanent basis.

Ultimately we can define time to be whatever we want it to be, and even ignore 
the historical convention of noon when the sun is due south, even if this 
offends some of the sundial enthusiasts.

Glad to know you have enjoyed the fun, even if there is a serious element.

Best wishes, Doug


> On 25 Nov 2016, at 14:41, Barbara and Augustine McCaffrey 
>  wrote:
> 
> Please, I am enjoying and learning from the discussion, so I would prefer 
> that it continue where I may read it.  Many thanks.  
> 
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Frank King  > wrote:
> Dear Doug,
> 
> It is probably time to conclude this
> fascinating discussion so this will
> be my final public offering (for a
> while).
> 
> > A significant part of my note is
> > reporting the work of others...
> 
> Indeed so.  I am familiar with most
> of your citations, especially, the
> report by the Cambridge Engineers.
> The methodology used was an utter
> disgrace in my view.
> 
> It is exceptionally difficult to
> find a way of comparing like with
> like without getting biased results.
> Also, making predictions, especially
> economic predictions, is notoriously
> subject to error.
> 
> My proposal to compare two adjacent
> U.S. towns in different time zones
> is a better approach but I am the
> first to admit that the two sets
> of results would not be truly
> independent (in the statistical
> sense) and the results would be
> biased.  For example, there will
> be people who live in one time
> zone and work in the other.
> 
> In terms of energy use, I don't
> believe a word of the analysis.
> The energy used when driving
> five miles to work is the same
> whether you drive in the dark
> or in the light.
> 
> I suggest you study the experience
> of Portugal:
> 
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Portugal 
> 
> 
> They have switched time zones
> several times and are forever
> being persuaded to use CEST.
> 
> Sometimes they try it and then
> find how unsatisfactory it is...
> 
>   when school classes started,
>   the sun was still rising,
>   which eventually had
>   repercussions on students'
>   school performance and their
>   safety during morning trips
>   from home to school.
> 
>   A company hired by European
>   Commission conducted a study
>   which concluded that, in fact,
>   there were no energy savings
>   because in the early morning,
>   due to the dark, workers turned
>   on lights in their offices,
>   and they forgot to turn them
>   off, leaving them switched on
>   for the rest of the morning,
>   which increased energy
>   consumption.
> 
>   ...insurance companies reported
>   a rise in the number of accidents.
> 
> Look, I don't believe all of this
> either!  Lighting uses a minuscule
> amount of energy compared with
> heating and transport though, of
> course, it shouldn't be wasted.
> 
> Portugal is now back on GMT and
> GMT+1 just like the U.K.
> 
> Remember, the U.K. DID experiment
> with year-round summer time and
> then gave it up.
> 
> You may say that this was because
> of grumbles from Scottish herdsman.
> 
> I have always wondered just how
> Scottish herdsmen can be such a
> forceful political lobby!  That
> doesn't stop them being right!
> 
> > ...the middle of the effective
> > day has moved to something
> > like 3pm.
> 
> Given your wish to fiddle with
> our clocks, this is ill-defined.
> I assume you mean three hours
> after solar transit?
> 
> This is a case of generalising
> from 

Re: Permanent DST

[Frank King]

Dear Doug,

It is probably time to conclude this
fascinating discussion so this will
be my final public offering (for a
while).

> A significant part of my note is
> reporting the work of others...

Indeed so.  I am familiar with most
of your citations, especially, the
report by the Cambridge Engineers.
The methodology used was an utter
disgrace in my view.

It is exceptionally difficult to
find a way of comparing like with
like without getting biased results.
Also, making predictions, especially
economic predictions, is notoriously
subject to error.

My proposal to compare two adjacent
U.S. towns in different time zones
is a better approach but I am the
first to admit that the two sets
of results would not be truly
independent (in the statistical
sense) and the results would be
biased.  For example, there will
be people who live in one time
zone and work in the other.

In terms of energy use, I don't
believe a word of the analysis.
The energy used when driving
five miles to work is the same
whether you drive in the dark
or in the light.

I suggest you study the experience
of Portugal:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Portugal

They have switched time zones
several times and are forever
being persuaded to use CEST.

Sometimes they try it and then
find how unsatisfactory it is...

  when school classes started,
  the sun was still rising,
  which eventually had
  repercussions on students'
  school performance and their
  safety during morning trips
  from home to school.

  A company hired by European
  Commission conducted a study
  which concluded that, in fact,
  there were no energy savings
  because in the early morning,
  due to the dark, workers turned
  on lights in their offices,
  and they forgot to turn them
  off, leaving them switched on
  for the rest of the morning,
  which increased energy
  consumption.

  ...insurance companies reported
  a rise in the number of accidents.

Look, I don't believe all of this
either!  Lighting uses a minuscule
amount of energy compared with
heating and transport though, of
course, it shouldn't be wasted.

Portugal is now back on GMT and
GMT+1 just like the U.K.

Remember, the U.K. DID experiment
with year-round summer time and
then gave it up.

You may say that this was because
of grumbles from Scottish herdsman.

I have always wondered just how
Scottish herdsmen can be such a
forceful political lobby!  That
doesn't stop them being right!

> ...the middle of the effective
> day has moved to something
> like 3pm.

Given your wish to fiddle with
our clocks, this is ill-defined.
I assume you mean three hours
after solar transit?

This is a case of generalising
from yourself and those you
associate with.  Certainly
count me out!

In the 1980s I worked for a spell
in Magdeburg University, then in
the DDR.  My hosting professor
asked me if my lectures could be
the first of the day.

"Yes," I said eagerly.  "Fine,"
he replied, "our first lecture
is at 7am so I'll meet you in
my office at 06:30 tomorrow."

This suited me very well but I
had to check with my landlady
about breakfast.

I explained that I would be
leaving about 6am and I asked
whether she could set out my
breakfast the night before.

"No need," she said, "I leave
for work myself at 4am, so I
shall set out your breakfast
before I depart."

As it turned out, I was the
last person in the household
to leave for work when I left
at 6am.

I had had some misgivings
about the East German regime
but this aspect seemed truly
excellent to me!

I now see that it wouldn't
work in Portugal!

By all means reply but I
suggest "off-list".

Very best wishes

Frank

---
https://lists.uni-koeln.de/mailman/listinfo/sundial