Re: sundial taxonomy
Hello Sara, The term Universal dial is very useful to indicate that the dial can be used at several latitudes. Adding the range of latitudes where this is true is good idea. But still I haven't any idea what type of dial it is. It may be a universal ring dial or a universal bifilar dial or a Butterfield or .. Most of the time it will be necessary to add more information to identify the sundial. The real dial or a picture of it will do best for this I think. Otherwise a description has to be made. Because there are so many possibilities to construct dials, and in the past so many have been made, it will be a difficult job to classify them in one system. Best wishes, Fer. Fer J. de Vries [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.iae.nl/users/ferdv/ Eindhoven, Netherlands lat. 51:30 N long. 5:30 E - Original Message - From: Sara Schechner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2000 6:11 PM Subject: Re: sundial taxonomy As an alternative approach we could get round this by specifying the angles of universality. e.g., UNIVERSAL 60°N - 10°S. This is a more scientific way of doing it. Again, I look for your comments. In cataloging sundials in museum collections and elsewhere, this is precisely the approach I take. Traditionally, the term universal is understood to imply only a limited range of latitudes (perhaps due to the term's eurocentric origins) and really is shorthand for serving multiple latitudes. Given the long history of the term, I don't want to change it or introduce semi-universal, etc. But as you suggest, I think it best to identify the parameters in which the dial is in fact universal. Sara
Re: sundial taxonomy
Message text written by Sara Schechner As an alternative approach we could get round this by specifying the angles of universality. e.g., UNIVERSAL 60°N - 10°S I would go with this. I don't like the idea of something being 'partly universal'. It seems to me things are either universal or they are not. [A similar problem also can occur with use of the word 'unique']. If one states the boundaries within which the device is universal that is far better to my way of thinking. But then maybe I am a pedant. Patrick
Re: sundial taxonomy
Hi All, I'll buy this, and put in in the next draft of the Glossary. I really don't want a different term for every possible type of dial! Regards, John Dr J R Davis Flowton, UK 52.08N, 1.043E email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Patrick Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sundial sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de Sent: 27 February 2000 20:28 Subject: Re: sundial taxonomy Message text written by Sara Schechner As an alternative approach we could get round this by specifying the angles of universality. e.g., UNIVERSAL 60°N - 10°S I would go with this. I don't like the idea of something being 'partly universal'. It seems to me things are either universal or they are not. [A similar problem also can occur with use of the word 'unique']. If one states the boundaries within which the device is universal that is far better to my way of thinking. But then maybe I am a pedant. Patrick
Re: sundial taxonomy
I don't like the idea of something being 'partly universal'. It seems to me things are either universal or they are not. Perhaps 'limited universal' will do, or 'universal within limits'? - Thibaud Taudin-Chabot 52°18'19.85 North 04°51'09.45 East home email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (attachments max. 500kB; for larger attachments contact me first)
Re: sundial taxonomy
Hi John, Thanks to Sara, Fer, and Gianni for helping us keep the types of dials clearly labeled. I am sorry for being one of those that contributed to the confusion. I understand now why azimuthal dials must have a vertical style. The Glossary is nicely done. I like how you linked key words so a mouse click gives more information. I do have a comment about the bifilar definition given in the glossary. It reads: bifilar ~: invented in 1922 by Hugo Michnik in its horizontal form, although it can be on any plane. The time is indicated by the intersection on the dial plate, of the shadows of two wires stretched above and parallel to it. The wires often run E-W and N-S, with their (different) heights above the plane being a function of the location of the dial. It has equiangular hour markings, and hence can be delineated to show many kinds of hours. The ratio of wire heights must be just right for the hour angles to be equal. Fred Sawyer deals with the special case of equiangular hours in a past issue of the Compendium and in Sciatheric Notes #1. While the original Michnik dial was equiangular, Fer de Vries has shown in an early issue of the BSS Bulletin, that the hour angles are not required to be equal. The last sentence of the bifilar definition could be worded to reflect this expansion. The last sentence could read It can have equiangular hour markings, and can be delineated to show many kinds of hours. Warren Thom (41.649N 88.096W) John Davis wrote: Hi All, I'll buy this, and put in in the next draft of the Glossary. I really don't want a different term for every possible type of dial! Regards, John Dr J R Davis Flowton, UK 52.08N, 1.043E email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Patrick Powers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sundial sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de Sent: 27 February 2000 20:28 Subject: Re: sundial taxonomy Message text written by Sara Schechner As an alternative approach we could get round this by specifying the angles of universality. e.g., UNIVERSAL 60°N - 10°S I would go with this. I don't like the idea of something being 'partly universal'. It seems to me things are either universal or they are not. [A similar problem also can occur with use of the word 'unique']. If one states the boundaries within which the device is universal that is far better to my way of thinking. But then maybe I am a pedant. Patrick
